Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
600
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

600 Views
Message 21 of 56

Why not heath care for all?  And no one would have to navigate all of this Bull of Plan A through D which is only a costing the most vunrable money yet is only a plan for big insurance to make money.  And confusing people who don't know any better and are not able to understand what is covered and what is not until it is too late.  If you understand everything about these plans good for you but many don't or can't afford all.  There is still nothing better the the KISS principle which many prefer to ignore when it is easy to baffle with bull rather than dazzle with brilliance.  All because of money.  No one in the greatest country the world has ever seen should be without health care period.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
600
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
614
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

614 Views
Message 22 of 56

@runner50 wrote:

And without that "system," NO insurance company in their right minds would come out to insure decrepit, sickly, feeble, disease-prone, full of preexisting conditions, seniors. No PROFIT in that.

 

We seniors are all very lucky, indeed.......Woman Wink


No profit and no fairness. Do you really think that it is fair for a person to never pay into an insurance plan during his "healthy days" and expect coverage in his dotage?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
614
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
620
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

620 Views
Message 23 of 56

@runner50 wrote:

And without that "system," NO insurance company in their right minds would come out to insure decrepit, sickly, feeble, disease-prone, full of preexisting conditions, seniors. No PROFIT in that.

 

We seniors are all very lucky, indeed.......Woman Wink


  runner50,

 

Why do you think that many seniors are now choosing the Medicare Advantage way to recieve their benefit ? 

 

Even though the ACA has reduced somewhat the various insurance company's benchmark for beneficiary reimbursement, the bonus payment (star-rating) system seems to still make it very lucrative for insurance companies to participate in the Medicare Advantage program; sometimes even giving additional services.

 

The only insurers (and perhaps beneficiaries)  who seem to have suffered are the ones in more rural areas where the network premise is very hard to pull together. 

 

Some big insurers have said earlier this year that they have thusfar lost money on ACA exchange plans and thus the Administration is having to make a few changes to assure them that they can know who is to be their customers in a time, specified manner - but yet they LOVE the Medicare Advantage part of their business and wish to expand it more by acquisitions and mergers.

 

Evidently beneficiaries that sign up to receive their Medicare benefits via a Medicare Advantage plan like them cause the numbers keep growing in sign ups - think more than 30% now get their benefits this way.


* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
620
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
628
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

628 Views
Message 24 of 56

And without that "system," NO insurance company in their right minds would come out to insure decrepit, sickly, feeble, disease-prone, full of preexisting conditions, seniors. No PROFIT in that.

 

We seniors are all very lucky, indeed.......Woman Wink

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
628
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
632
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

632 Views
Message 25 of 56

@runner50 wrote:

I guarantee you, NONE of these right wing seniors will reject their Medicare, Social Security or ANYTHING. Without those things, they would have NOTHING......especially regarding MEDICAL. And they know it.

 

It's easy to holler about "socialism" when all your MEDICAL is covered and guaranteed......Woman Indifferent


That is a true statement for two very good reasons - first, they have been paying in to the system because they were required to and now want the supposed "benefits". Secondly, the system has created a dependency. Without those programs there is little left to the average person.

 

Considering that reality, it hardly seems a basis for, "Now let's do more and make more people dependent on the government bureaucracies".

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
632
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
659
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

659 Views
Message 26 of 56

I guarantee you, NONE of these right wing seniors will reject their Medicare, Social Security or ANYTHING. Without those things, they would have NOTHING......especially regarding MEDICAL. And they know it.

 

It's easy to holler about "socialism" when all your MEDICAL is covered and guaranteed......Woman Indifferent

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
659
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
623
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

623 Views
Message 27 of 56

@runner50 wrote:

Think folks have to do some research. Actually, we seniors pay a LOT LESS into Medicare and get LOTS MORE out of it. Social Security is a different story. I know we seniors fell we DESERVE IT. But I contend ALL folks, including folks that are now WORKING and STRUGGLING, deserve it. More so that the parasitic politicians who get SUBSIDIZED benefits and perks.

 

Have seniors really paid for Medicare and Social Security?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/02/18/have-seniors-really-paid-for-medicare-and-soc...

 

Few seniors have actually paid for their Medicare benefits. According to anUrban Institute estimate, the typical retired couple paid $122,000 in lifetime Medicare taxes but can expect to receive benefits worth $387,000. Social Security is another story. There, the average retired couple paid $600,000 in lifetime taxes for $579,000 in benefits. Put together, it's $722,000 in taxes for $966,000 in benefits. (All figures are adjusted for inflation.)


runner - You really need to look at the actual numbers. If someone retired this year after working for 40 years, their MAXIMUM contribution to OASI/DI would be $318,363 - and that's including their employer share. That same individual, having made it to 65 can be expected to live another 20 years, and each year s/he will receive the maximum possible SS OASI payment - $31,688/year, for a grand total benefits paid of $633,360, and I believe $633,360 > $318,363.

 

Now if you're going to "adjust for inflation" to make the pay out bigger, you must also use the time value of money to inflate the Present Value of those 40 years worth of contributions, which will give you the same result as my "unadjusted for inflation" numbers - you will get much more from SS as you ever put in.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
623
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
719
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

719 Views
Message 28 of 56

@GailL1 wrote:

@rb88283943 wrote:
  • The U.S. DOES have the most expensive healthcare system in the world, and we are ranked VERY VERY LOW IN QUALITY OF CARE .............. PLUS highest pharmaceutical prices BY FAR.

It is high because we have access to so much and we use it.  Plus we don't have the cost constraints put on us and our health care providers that other countries have.The "constraints" that other countries have is a rational limit on profits that can be extracted in providing what the rest of the industriaized World considers a RIGHT - namely affordable health care for all their citizens.

 

We have MORE MRI machines, more hospitals but not where we need them but fewer primary care physicians Main reason are those HMOs that the RW told us would contain health care costs by restraining all those greedy Doctors. Good people leave primary care because of the Corporations they work for limiting the time they can spend with each patient and pushing them to expand the "billable units" extracted from each patient. When that is replaced with a flat fee (dollars per month) doctors love being a primary care physician, and this would be part of any Universal single payer system, just as it is in the rest of the World

 

Many of us, maybe most, don't have to have a "gatekeeper" Yes we do, so does every other country's citizens because otherwise patient demand overloads the system

 

We have access to a wider formulary because we do not measure the cost of efficacy when a medication is approved. And you consider that a benefit HOW? We have a pharmicology industry dedicated to making tiny tweeks in existing drugs so they can push the "new" drug for another 7 years under patent protection while discontinuing the old drug so it cannot become a generic alternative. No other country tolerates that fraud against their citizens, butr no other country has Republicans.

 

We are MUCH bigger in population and in (differing) geographical areas than these other countries But we are SMALLER and less diverse than the European Union, which has much better health care at less than half the cost.

 

We have cancer preventive reviews that are much looser than those of other countries.

 

We have MORE people with HepC, disbetes, health disease - although many of those other countries have higher smoking rates. That's because we do not regulate our food industry to prevent them poisoning us for profit.

 


The bottom line is this: We pay twice as much for the WORST health care system of any industrialized democracy because Republicans have blocked every move toward a rational system since the 1940's. The solution is obvious: get RID of elected Republicans and join the 21st Century with Univesal single payer in America. If this was in any way difficult, every other country on earth would not already have it, or a close approximation.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
719
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
740
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

740 Views
Message 29 of 56

When I hear those on the Right scream and holler about "socialism," even though many don't have a CLUE about what REAL socialism is but like to use it as a political catch phrase and "talking point," my reaction is, pretty much, this.....and I know the righties will scream about the source. But the hypocrisy, as usual with them, is GLARING.......especially SENIORS on the Right..........Woman Indifferent

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=932842310144727&set=gm.751479561655197&type=3&theater

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
740
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
763
Views

Re: MEDICARE FOR ALL

763 Views
Message 30 of 56

@runner50 wrote:

 

Have seniors really paid for Medicare and Social Security

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/02/18/have-seniors-really-paid-for-medicare-and-soc...Few seniors have actually paid for their Medicare benefits. According to an Urban Institute estimate, the typical retired couple paid $122,000 in lifetime Medicare taxes but can expect to receive benefits worth $387,000. 


The Urban Institute does research on this subject regularly and you might want to come out of the dark ages and read one of the more recent Urban Institute documents on this subject (as well as on SS).

 

You are referencing a three-year-old newspaper article, which in turn is referencing a four year old Urban Institute report? But worse the Washington Post article that you depend on for your bad information also does not accurately reflect the cohort concept in the Urban Institute research on this subject. There is no "average couple" in the Urban Institute research as the former WaPo lefty pretends so the whole WaPo article is a crock. (Why would you put a link in a comment you wrote to a research resport you clearly did not read?)

 

But more important, people who do research for a living do not depend on secondary sources like you are doing. If you want to comment on this subject coherently (I understand that you do not), you need to actually read and understand the Urban Institute research. When you do that (and even email back and forth with the author as I have done) you find that even that Urban Institute research has only done half the work (see Note) required to get a full understanding of who pays what when it comes to Medicare. That's because both the four year old Urban Institute research the WaPo left winger is referring and the Urban Institute's current (September 2015) research on this subject does not

  • -- Take into account the pooling effect of insurance
  • -- Take into account the income taxes paid over a working person's lifetime that go into the Part B trust fund (Urban Institute only counts the payroll taxes that go into the Part A trust fund as input but counts all Medicare expenditures on the output side)

When these two factors are considered, people born after about 1940 have paid their own way or are paying their own way in terms of Medicare.

  • -- The longer after 1940 you were born the more you are paying your own way
  • -- The longer before 1940 you were born the more you are not paying your own way.

This was the design of Medicare when it was passed in 1965.

 

So it looks like you're the "folk" that needs to do some research. Didn't your father tell you not to believe what you read in a newspaper? (By the way, there is something wrong with the Shift key on your keyboard.)

 

Note: The Urban Institute apparently did only half the work required on on this subject because of its far left wing slant. But maybe the author was just lazy.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
763
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

This AARP gamer plays to get back her art and identity after a health scare. Read Regan C.’s story, available now.


gamer Regan C.

Top Authors