80/20 healthcare

[Mac1958]

Don't forget you pay in all your life for Medicare as well. Its not an entitlement.

This is the part pretty much every Medicare single payer fan forgets. Yes it is low premiums at retirement age, but that is because you already paid into it for decades

Something like 80% of our health care costs are incurred after age 65. Covering the younger part of the populace would not be nearly as expensive, not even close. And here's an idea you won't see anywhere else: We could start Medicare coverage at a lower rate (say, 50%) when people are younger and Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare Supplement plans would be cheaper, and then increase the coverage percentage with age. That would flatten both the cost curve to the system and premium payments to participants.

The Medicare/Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement system would take a massive cost monkey off the backs of American employers, it would allow for complete portability, it would address small, inexpensive issues before they become larger, expensive issues, and it would maintain dynamic free market competition and innovation.

The idea I came up with above is just one that could be utilized, imagine if we actually put some effort into it instead of playing politics.
.

 

[debbiedowner]

Don't forget you pay in all your life for Medicare as well. Its not an entitlement.

This is the part pretty much every Medicare single payer fan forgets. Yes it is low premiums at retirement age, but that is because you already paid into it for decades

Something like 80% of our health care costs are incurred after age 65. Covering the younger part of the populace would not be nearly as expensive, not even close. And here's an idea you won't see anywhere else: We could start Medicare coverage at a lower rate (say, 50%) when people are younger and Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare Supplement plans would be cheaper, and then increase the coverage percentage with age.

The Medicare/Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement system would take a massive cost monkey off the backs of American employers, it would allow for complete portability, it would address small, inexpensive issues before they become larger, expensive issues, and would maintain dynamic free market competition.

The idea I came up with above is just one that could be utilized, imagine if we actually put some effort into it instead of playing politics.
.

To simple Mac for the ones who only know what they've been told on TV.

 

[Mac1958]

Don't forget you pay in all your life for Medicare as well. Its not an entitlement.

This is the part pretty much every Medicare single payer fan forgets. Yes it is low premiums at retirement age, but that is because you already paid into it for decades

Something like 80% of our health care costs are incurred after age 65. Covering the younger part of the populace would not be nearly as expensive, not even close. And here's an idea you won't see anywhere else: We could start Medicare coverage at a lower rate (say, 50%) when people are younger and Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare Supplement plans would be cheaper, and then increase the coverage percentage with age.

The Medicare/Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement system would take a massive cost monkey off the backs of American employers, it would allow for complete portability, it would address small, inexpensive issues before they become larger, expensive issues, and would maintain dynamic free market competition.

The idea I came up with above is just one that could be utilized, imagine if we actually put some effort into it instead of playing politics.
.

To simple Mac for the ones who only know what they've been told on TV.

I wonder how people here really know how the system works, and how many are just parroting what they hear.

This is frustrating. The ANSWER is RIGHT THERE.
.

 

[Penelope]

Don't forget you pay in all your life for Medicare as well. Its not an entitlement.

This is the part pretty much every Medicare single payer fan forgets. Yes it is low premiums at retirement age, but that is because you already paid into it for decades

Something like 80% of our health care costs are incurred after age 65. Covering the younger part of the populace would not be nearly as expensive, not even close. And here's an idea you won't see anywhere else: We could start Medicare coverage at a lower rate (say, 50%) when people are younger and Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare Supplement plans would be cheaper, and then increase the coverage percentage with age.

The Medicare/Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement system would take a massive cost monkey off the backs of American employers, it would allow for complete portability, it would address small, inexpensive issues before they become larger, expensive issues, and would maintain dynamic free market competition.

The idea I came up with above is just one that could be utilized, imagine if we actually put some effort into it instead of playing politics.
.

Yes that is how the ACA works, by age and smoking (smoking I think should not be there, will they have pot smoking soon) should only go by age.

 

[debbiedowner]

Don't forget you pay in all your life for Medicare as well. Its not an entitlement.

This is the part pretty much every Medicare single payer fan forgets. Yes it is low premiums at retirement age, but that is because you already paid into it for decades

Something like 80% of our health care costs are incurred after age 65. Covering the younger part of the populace would not be nearly as expensive, not even close. And here's an idea you won't see anywhere else: We could start Medicare coverage at a lower rate (say, 50%) when people are younger and Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare Supplement plans would be cheaper, and then increase the coverage percentage with age.

The Medicare/Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement system would take a massive cost monkey off the backs of American employers, it would allow for complete portability, it would address small, inexpensive issues before they become larger, expensive issues, and would maintain dynamic free market competition.

The idea I came up with above is just one that could be utilized, imagine if we actually put some effort into it instead of playing politics.
.

To simple Mac for the ones who only know what they've been told on TV.

I wonder how people here really know how the system works, and how many are just parroting what they hear.

This is frustrating. The ANSWER is RIGHT THERE.
.

From my clients and from this board very few know how the system works. They make their decisions on "I heard from a friend of a friend" and that is written in stone. I have over 1000 clients on Med Advantage and more than willing to help each and every one of them and navigate the system. Not all call until months after they have been screwed one way or another by a provider. People have to get it through their thick skulls some providers will bill you extra hoping they can get away with it. For some people, it's better to pay those little bills under $50 than to find out if they really owe it, in most instances they do not.

 

[Mac1958]

Don't forget you pay in all your life for Medicare as well. Its not an entitlement.

This is the part pretty much every Medicare single payer fan forgets. Yes it is low premiums at retirement age, but that is because you already paid into it for decades

Something like 80% of our health care costs are incurred after age 65. Covering the younger part of the populace would not be nearly as expensive, not even close. And here's an idea you won't see anywhere else: We could start Medicare coverage at a lower rate (say, 50%) when people are younger and Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare Supplement plans would be cheaper, and then increase the coverage percentage with age.

The Medicare/Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement system would take a massive cost monkey off the backs of American employers, it would allow for complete portability, it would address small, inexpensive issues before they become larger, expensive issues, and would maintain dynamic free market competition.

The idea I came up with above is just one that could be utilized, imagine if we actually put some effort into it instead of playing politics.
.

Yes that is how the ACA works, by age and smoking (smoking I think should not be there, will they have pot smoking soon) should only go by age.

The ACA is a horrific pig. It maintains our insane seven-headed (individual, group, VA, Medicare, Medicaid, Worker's Comp, Indigent) payment/delivery hydra, it's a pile of band-aid after band-aid and needs to be tossed out. The only thing worse is the GOP's insane "plan".
.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Don't forget you pay in all your life for Medicare as well. Its not an entitlement.

This is the part pretty much every Medicare single payer fan forgets. Yes it is low premiums at retirement age, but that is because you already paid into it for decades

Something like 80% of our health care costs are incurred after age 65. Covering the younger part of the populace would not be nearly as expensive, not even close. And here's an idea you won't see anywhere else: We could start Medicare coverage at a lower rate (say, 50%) when people are younger and Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare Supplement plans would be cheaper, and then increase the coverage percentage with age.

The Medicare/Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement system would take a massive cost monkey off the backs of American employers, it would allow for complete portability, it would address small, inexpensive issues before they become larger, expensive issues, and would maintain dynamic free market competition.

The idea I came up with above is just one that could be utilized, imagine if we actually put some effort into it instead of playing politics.
.

To simple Mac for the ones who only know what they've been told on TV.

I wonder how people here really know how the system works, and how many are just parroting what they hear.

This is frustrating. The ANSWER is RIGHT THERE.
.

From my clients and from this board very few know how the system works. They make their decisions on "I heard from a friend of a friend" and that is written in stone. I have over 1000 clients on Med Advantage and more than willing to help each and every one of them and navigate the system. Not all call until months after they have been screwed one way or another by a provider. People have to get it through their thick skulls some providers will bill you extra hoping they can get away with it. For some people, it's better to pay those little bills under $50 than to find out if they really owe it, in most instances they do not.

The system is there, it makes sense, and inefficiencies could be addressed.

But anything that becomes politicized immediately is dumbed-down and turned into a bumper sticker. And that's what has happened here.
.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

This is the part pretty much every Medicare single payer fan forgets. Yes it is low premiums at retirement age, but that is because you already paid into it for decades

But that would describe ANY system you talk about. If you are getting private insurance, you or your employer are paying into it for years - a lot more than you pay into medicare - before you take anything out.

The problem creeps in when the insurance companies decide that it's more important to pay 9 figure Executive Salaries and dividends to stock holders than it is to pay for the medical bills of the people who are paying the premiums.

I am not arguing that Healthcare Insurance is out of control, I am merely making the point to the uninformed that Medicare premiums are not low. You "pre-pay" your premiums your entire working career.
I am 52 years old, so I remember when people used to pay somewhere around $200-$300 a month for FAMILY insurance that was 80/20 including Dental and Vision - and everything worked fine.

 

[Freewill]

Don't forget you pay in all your life for Medicare as well. Its not an entitlement.

This is the part pretty much every Medicare single payer fan forgets. Yes it is low premiums at retirement age, but that is because you already paid into it for decades

Yes! Exactly how it should work. Spread cost out over a life time. EVERYONE is going to get old, a good many folks will get hurt or injured or get a disease of some sort. Some more then other. Like auto insurance, spread out the cost so one event doesn't bankrupt a person.

 

[Freewill]

This is the part pretty much every Medicare single payer fan forgets. Yes it is low premiums at retirement age, but that is because you already paid into it for decades

But that would describe ANY system you talk about. If you are getting private insurance, you or your employer are paying into it for years - a lot more than you pay into medicare - before you take anything out.

The problem creeps in when the insurance companies decide that it's more important to pay 9 figure Executive Salaries and dividends to stock holders than it is to pay for the medical bills of the people who are paying the premiums.

I am not arguing that Healthcare Insurance is out of control, I am merely making the point to the uninformed that Medicare premiums are not low. You "pre-pay" your premiums your entire working career.
I am 52 years old, so I remember when people used to pay somewhere around $200-$300 a month for FAMILY insurance that was 80/20 including Dental and Vision - and everything worked fine.

I think you are talking about company sponsored insurance. What we see today is the availability of insurance to everyone, some for free some not so free, but we are all paying the same. If you have company sponsored insurance they pick up part of the cost, which could be paid to the employee. If you don't have company sponsored health insurance then you pay the full load. Those not making enough money have the government pay their share. It is those caught in the middle, aka the middle class, that ends up being hurt by both ends. So they are the ones effected by the huge cost increases.

 

[Freewill]

What is the problem if everyone, everyone, is covered by a program like medicare? Where their premium pays 80 percent of cost and the person pays 20? Then if so desired the person can buy "advantage" or "gap" plans to enhance their coverage?

this would require dropping the company sponsored healthcare and in exchange people would have a choice of which private insurance they would buy advantage plans, which could be provided for by the company they work for. It would make every one in the same group.

Seems to me that would be fairly simple and would maintain both sides of the argument.

I am not really sure why private healthcare insurance, which has allowed costs to skyrocket, needs protection.

That's what I'm screaming for, and I'm beginning to think we might get there.

The Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system is already in place, it works, it takes a massive monkey off the back of American business, it's an excellent blend of public and private, let's do it.

The GOP and the Dems have fucked up, but I think our "leaders" (har har, cough) are smart enough to avoid real Single Payer. This is the obvious answer.
.

Bullshit! Medicare for all IS SINGLE PAYER. The poor won't want to pay premiums, they don't even pay taxes. How does the government collect the $109 monthly for Part B? We had the best healthcare system befor Obama fucked it up. It makes sense to simply repeal Obamacare and go back to the best healthcare system in the world. And don't replace it!

Mmmmerica baby! Woot!

YouTube has helpful videos on free market Medicare Advantage and Medicare Supplement plans.

Let me know when you've educated yourself on them and we can talk.
.

My advantage plan cost nothing. What does that tell us about what medicare pays? Insurance companies really put on the hard sell for people to pick up advantage plans and such. Would they be going after seniors if they were losing money? I think not.

But one thing, being government run it is ripe for rip off and I think that is what the insurance companies actually do.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

This is the part pretty much every Medicare single payer fan forgets. Yes it is low premiums at retirement age, but that is because you already paid into it for decades

But that would describe ANY system you talk about. If you are getting private insurance, you or your employer are paying into it for years - a lot more than you pay into medicare - before you take anything out.

The problem creeps in when the insurance companies decide that it's more important to pay 9 figure Executive Salaries and dividends to stock holders than it is to pay for the medical bills of the people who are paying the premiums.

I am not arguing that Healthcare Insurance is out of control, I am merely making the point to the uninformed that Medicare premiums are not low. You "pre-pay" your premiums your entire working career.
I am 52 years old, so I remember when people used to pay somewhere around $200-$300 a month for FAMILY insurance that was 80/20 including Dental and Vision - and everything worked fine.

I think you are talking about company sponsored insurance. What we see today is the availability of insurance to everyone, some for free some not so free, but we are all paying the same. If you have company sponsored insurance they pick up part of the cost, which could be paid to the employee. If you don't have company sponsored health insurance then you pay the full load. Those not making enough money have the government pay their share. It is those caught in the middle, aka the middle class, that ends up being hurt by both ends. So they are the ones effected by the huge cost increases.

Employer sponsored healthcare insurance worked very well for decades, over 70% of Americans were covered via these plans. It was affordable, and the deductibles were WAAAAAAY lower than today. It worked.
It doesn't work anymore.
Why? - This is the question everyone should be asking. For the answer to the WHOLE problem, lies in this answer

 

[Mac1958]

What is the problem if everyone, everyone, is covered by a program like medicare? Where their premium pays 80 percent of cost and the person pays 20? Then if so desired the person can buy "advantage" or "gap" plans to enhance their coverage?

this would require dropping the company sponsored healthcare and in exchange people would have a choice of which private insurance they would buy advantage plans, which could be provided for by the company they work for. It would make every one in the same group.

Seems to me that would be fairly simple and would maintain both sides of the argument.

I am not really sure why private healthcare insurance, which has allowed costs to skyrocket, needs protection.

That's what I'm screaming for, and I'm beginning to think we might get there.

The Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system is already in place, it works, it takes a massive monkey off the back of American business, it's an excellent blend of public and private, let's do it.

The GOP and the Dems have fucked up, but I think our "leaders" (har har, cough) are smart enough to avoid real Single Payer. This is the obvious answer.
.

Bullshit! Medicare for all IS SINGLE PAYER. The poor won't want to pay premiums, they don't even pay taxes. How does the government collect the $109 monthly for Part B? We had the best healthcare system befor Obama fucked it up. It makes sense to simply repeal Obamacare and go back to the best healthcare system in the world. And don't replace it!

Mmmmerica baby! Woot!

YouTube has helpful videos on free market Medicare Advantage and Medicare Supplement plans.

Let me know when you've educated yourself on them and we can talk.
.

My advantage plan cost nothing. What does that tell us about what medicare pays? Insurance companies really put on the hard sell for people to pick up advantage plans and such. Would they be going after seniors if they were losing money? I think not.

But one thing, being government run it is ripe for rip off and I think that is what the insurance companies actually do.

So we look at a problem and we address it.

With Medicare Advantage plans, the insurance company is paid a PMPM (per member per month) fee to take over your entire Medicare coverage. Then, depending on the company, they'll toss in extras like health club memberships to keep you healthier long term. With free market competition/innovation, it's in their interest to keep you healthier so that their costs are down, unlike Single Payer, where the money just comes from "the government". There are controls in place to deal with "rip off", but it still can happen, and we just need to address that.

But, those controls would be fewer in a true "free market" system. The potential for fat in the system would be higher.
.

 

[Freewill]

What is the problem if everyone, everyone, is covered by a program like medicare? Where their premium pays 80 percent of cost and the person pays 20? Then if so desired the person can buy "advantage" or "gap" plans to enhance their coverage?

this would require dropping the company sponsored healthcare and in exchange people would have a choice of which private insurance they would buy advantage plans, which could be provided for by the company they work for. It would make every one in the same group.

Seems to me that would be fairly simple and would maintain both sides of the argument.

I am not really sure why private healthcare insurance, which has allowed costs to skyrocket, needs protection.

That's what I'm screaming for, and I'm beginning to think we might get there.

The Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system is already in place, it works, it takes a massive monkey off the back of American business, it's an excellent blend of public and private, let's do it.

The GOP and the Dems have fucked up, but I think our "leaders" (har har, cough) are smart enough to avoid real Single Payer. This is the obvious answer.
.

Bullshit! Medicare for all IS SINGLE PAYER. The poor won't want to pay premiums, they don't even pay taxes. How does the government collect the $109 monthly for Part B? We had the best healthcare system befor Obama fucked it up. It makes sense to simply repeal Obamacare and go back to the best healthcare system in the world. And don't replace it!

Mmmmerica baby! Woot!

Our health care system has not changed because of Obamacare. In fact there are actual improvements in how healthcare is provided, such as no preexisiting condition.

Poor people CAN'T pay there is no way around that fact. So the question becomes what do we as a civil society do with these people? Force them back to using the ER for "free?" A service which the health care industry has no problem sucking the life blood out of people for its use. Or can we afford to pay much less and have people use places like convenience care ? Or even have a PCP who can treat these people instead of going without or using the expensive, according to the health care providers?

 

[Freewill]

This is the part pretty much every Medicare single payer fan forgets. Yes it is low premiums at retirement age, but that is because you already paid into it for decades

But that would describe ANY system you talk about. If you are getting private insurance, you or your employer are paying into it for years - a lot more than you pay into medicare - before you take anything out.

The problem creeps in when the insurance companies decide that it's more important to pay 9 figure Executive Salaries and dividends to stock holders than it is to pay for the medical bills of the people who are paying the premiums.

I am not arguing that Healthcare Insurance is out of control, I am merely making the point to the uninformed that Medicare premiums are not low. You "pre-pay" your premiums your entire working career.
I am 52 years old, so I remember when people used to pay somewhere around $200-$300 a month for FAMILY insurance that was 80/20 including Dental and Vision - and everything worked fine.

I think you are talking about company sponsored insurance. What we see today is the availability of insurance to everyone, some for free some not so free, but we are all paying the same. If you have company sponsored insurance they pick up part of the cost, which could be paid to the employee. If you don't have company sponsored health insurance then you pay the full load. Those not making enough money have the government pay their share. It is those caught in the middle, aka the middle class, that ends up being hurt by both ends. So they are the ones effected by the huge cost increases.

Employer sponsored healthcare insurance worked very well for decades, over 70% of Americans were covered via these plans. It was affordable, and the deductibles were WAAAAAAY lower than today. It worked.
It doesn't work anymore.
Why? - This is the question everyone should be asking. For the answer to the WHOLE problem, lies in this answer

Who says it doesn't work? I will bet money that most of those in opposition to trying to make the system work better and be more affordable have company sponsored health care. That NEVER changed with Obamacare.

But what have we gotten with that system, escalating prices that in any other segment of society would be considered out of control escalation in cost. Did Obamacare cause that , not in my opinion. Did Obamacare do anything to address the issue, not in my opinion, except for maybe the poor.

 

[Freewill]

What is the problem if everyone, everyone, is covered by a program like medicare? Where their premium pays 80 percent of cost and the person pays 20? Then if so desired the person can buy "advantage" or "gap" plans to enhance their coverage?

this would require dropping the company sponsored healthcare and in exchange people would have a choice of which private insurance they would buy advantage plans, which could be provided for by the company they work for. It would make every one in the same group.

Seems to me that would be fairly simple and would maintain both sides of the argument.

I am not really sure why private healthcare insurance, which has allowed costs to skyrocket, needs protection.

That's what I'm screaming for, and I'm beginning to think we might get there.

The Medicare / Medicare Advantage / Medicare Supplement system is already in place, it works, it takes a massive monkey off the back of American business, it's an excellent blend of public and private, let's do it.

The GOP and the Dems have fucked up, but I think our "leaders" (har har, cough) are smart enough to avoid real Single Payer. This is the obvious answer.
.

Bullshit! Medicare for all IS SINGLE PAYER. The poor won't want to pay premiums, they don't even pay taxes. How does the government collect the $109 monthly for Part B? We had the best healthcare system befor Obama fucked it up. It makes sense to simply repeal Obamacare and go back to the best healthcare system in the world. And don't replace it!

Mmmmerica baby! Woot!

YouTube has helpful videos on free market Medicare Advantage and Medicare Supplement plans.

Let me know when you've educated yourself on them and we can talk.
.

My advantage plan cost nothing. What does that tell us about what medicare pays? Insurance companies really put on the hard sell for people to pick up advantage plans and such. Would they be going after seniors if they were losing money? I think not.

But one thing, being government run it is ripe for rip off and I think that is what the insurance companies actually do.

So we look at a problem and we address it.

With Medicare Advantage plans, the insurance company is paid a PMPM (per member per month) fee to take over your entire Medicare coverage. Then, depending on the company, they'll toss in extras like health club memberships to keep you healthier long term. With free market competition/innovation, it's in their interest to keep you healthier so that their costs are down, unlike Single Payer, where the money just comes from "the government". There are controls in place to deal with "rip off", but it still can happen, and we just need to address that.

But, those controls would be fewer in a true "free market" system. The potential for fat in the system would be higher.
.

Bottom line, if cost could be contained to something that even approaches the inflation rate we would not need insurance. But we can't contain costs just by letting the free market system work. As I have pointed out several times health care insurance only adds about 5 percent to the cost. BUT the truth, as I see it, is that the insurance companies know that 5 percent of 1 million is far less then 5 percent of 1 billion so cost containment isn't really an issue for them, as much as they like to say.

 

[Darkwind]

What is the problem if everyone, everyone, is covered by a program like medicare? Where their premium pays 80 percent of cost and the person pays 20? Then if so desired the person can buy "advantage" or "gap" plans to enhance their coverage?

this would require dropping the company sponsored healthcare and in exchange people would have a choice of which private insurance they would buy advantage plans, which could be provided for by the company they work for. It would make every one in the same group.

Seems to me that would be fairly simple and would maintain both sides of the argument.

I am not really sure why private healthcare insurance, which has allowed costs to skyrocket, needs protection.

Because Medicare artificially sets prices for reimbursement that severely restricts the number of doctors which will accept Medicare. There is very little profit in it.

Also, the premiums are insufficient to offset the cost of the care, so we wind up passing the costs off to those with "real" insurance. Those $5.00 aspirins are paying for Grandma's bypass surgery a couple of dollars at a time.

You want healthcare costs to explode, just expand Medicare beyond its current scope.

One thing I do know for sure, the current system is unsustainable, if we don't want to bankrupt everyone. Health care cost are going up much faster then inflation rate.

I have not been denied because of medicare payments.

I am thinking that passing the cost off so that the insurance companies can be more profitable just seems wrong.

Costs are increasing because of Medicare and Medicaid. Expand them and you will really see costs shoot through the roof!

You may not have been denied because of payments, but have you ever tried to find a new doctor that will accept Medicare? My mother, God rest her soul, needed some psychiatric care to deal with her blindness, and other health issues. I tried unsuccessfully to locate any mental health care providers in a city with over 1 million people that would take her as a Medicare patient. I spent days calling every provider I could find to try and get her help. I found one that would evaluate her and see if they could help her, but I would have to pay them out of pocket first. The next appointment available was after she had already suffered a stroke and died.

Do away with medicare and do as I said, then doctors wouldn't have a choice. Except to stay in business.

The doctor doing my wife's surgery cast 2000 dollars, I know I paid. The day of the surgery he did at least 3 before 1 PM. Is that a lot?

Doctors would have no choice? I am not following you. Doctors do not have to treat Medicare patients if they do not want to! Are you proposing changing that?

If so, you are on the slippery slope of price-fixing and that is not acceptable in most people's opinions.

He is proposing that if a doctor wants to have just one patient, he will have to accept a government check for his services. Because every single person will be on this medicare/medicaid.

 

[debbiedowner]

This is the part pretty much every Medicare single payer fan forgets. Yes it is low premiums at retirement age, but that is because you already paid into it for decades

But that would describe ANY system you talk about. If you are getting private insurance, you or your employer are paying into it for years - a lot more than you pay into medicare - before you take anything out.

The problem creeps in when the insurance companies decide that it's more important to pay 9 figure Executive Salaries and dividends to stock holders than it is to pay for the medical bills of the people who are paying the premiums.

I am not arguing that Healthcare Insurance is out of control, I am merely making the point to the uninformed that Medicare premiums are not low. You "pre-pay" your premiums your entire working career.
I am 52 years old, so I remember when people used to pay somewhere around $200-$300 a month for FAMILY insurance that was 80/20 including Dental and Vision - and everything worked fine.

I remember those days.

 

[debbiedowner]

Because Medicare artificially sets prices for reimbursement that severely restricts the number of doctors which will accept Medicare. There is very little profit in it.

Also, the premiums are insufficient to offset the cost of the care, so we wind up passing the costs off to those with "real" insurance. Those $5.00 aspirins are paying for Grandma's bypass surgery a couple of dollars at a time.

You want healthcare costs to explode, just expand Medicare beyond its current scope.

One thing I do know for sure, the current system is unsustainable, if we don't want to bankrupt everyone. Health care cost are going up much faster then inflation rate.

I have not been denied because of medicare payments.

I am thinking that passing the cost off so that the insurance companies can be more profitable just seems wrong.

Costs are increasing because of Medicare and Medicaid. Expand them and you will really see costs shoot through the roof!

You may not have been denied because of payments, but have you ever tried to find a new doctor that will accept Medicare? My mother, God rest her soul, needed some psychiatric care to deal with her blindness, and other health issues. I tried unsuccessfully to locate any mental health care providers in a city with over 1 million people that would take her as a Medicare patient. I spent days calling every provider I could find to try and get her help. I found one that would evaluate her and see if they could help her, but I would have to pay them out of pocket first. The next appointment available was after she had already suffered a stroke and died.

Do away with medicare and do as I said, then doctors wouldn't have a choice. Except to stay in business.

The doctor doing my wife's surgery cast 2000 dollars, I know I paid. The day of the surgery he did at least 3 before 1 PM. Is that a lot?

Doctors would have no choice? I am not following you. Doctors do not have to treat Medicare patients if they do not want to! Are you proposing changing that?

If so, you are on the slippery slope of price-fixing and that is not acceptable in most people's opinions.

He is proposing that if a doctor wants to have just one patient, he will have to accept a government check for his services. Because every single person will be on this medicare/medicaid.

Present day: Approximately 10,000 seniors a day are turning 65 and going on Medicare. Close to the largest percentage of population. Do doctors want to stay in business? Most of the doctors I know have a mostly senior practice.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I remember those days.

Then you also remember something called "pensions". REAL pensions. Before the government removed regulations that allowed corporations to dip into the pension funds to use for other purposes.