26CornerBlitz Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 @pewresearch Public support for ‘single payer’ health coverage grows, driven by Democrats http://pewrsr.ch/2u7OTtw @davidfrumDavid Frum Retweeted Pew Research Center Hard for Republicans to accept this, but Dems thought of ACA as itself a compromise … Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 @pewresearch Public support for ‘single payer’ health coverage grows, driven by Democrats http://pewrsr.ch/2 Yeah they agree with Trump 6 promises Trump has made about health care ‘INSURANCE FOR EVERYBODY’ http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-obamacare-promises-236021 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Yeah they agree with Trump 6 promises Trump has made about health care ‘INSURANCE FOR EVERYBODY’ http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-obamacare-promises-236021 You wouldn't make a very good bipartisan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 (edited) You wouldn't make a very good bipartisan. but I agree with Trump's 6 promises Edited July 19, 2017 by ALF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Republicans would not go there of course. After 7 years they have no clue how to fix ACA If they don't fix ACA, 2018 and 20 will That's not what I'm responding to. You said that premiums would go down under a Medicare-for-all approach and that's not how it works. Medicare pays for 80% which is the Lion's share of the claims. Medicare pays for the claims via a fixed tax rate based on your income. Taxes would essentially be the premiums in this case. Unless of course you were talking about Medicare Advantage or Supplements and even then Medicare Advantage still wouldn't apply, the only true premiums in this would be through Medicare supplements. But that only accounts for 20% of the claims. I guess what I'm saying is that your statement didn't make sense. @pewresearch Public support for ‘single payer’ health coverage grows, driven by Democrats http://pewrsr.ch/2u7OTtw @davidfrumDavid Frum Retweeted Pew Research Center Hard for Republicans to accept this, but Dems thought of ACA as itself a compromise … That doesn't surprise me. It's the direction that the left wing is moving towards and my guess is that if the healthcare system in the U.S continues to flounder as it has pre and current ACA then we'll probably begin to see even independents move that direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 That's not what I'm responding to. You said that premiums would go down under a Medicare-for-all approach and that's not how it works. Medicare pays for 80% which is the Lion's share of the claims. Medicare pays for the claims via a fixed tax rate based on your income. Taxes would essentially be the premiums in this case. Unless of course you were talking about Medicare Advantage or Supplements and even then Medicare Advantage still wouldn't apply, the only true premiums in this would be through Medicare supplements. But that only accounts for 20% of the claims. I guess what I'm saying is that your statement didn't make sense. That doesn't surprise me. It's the direction that the left wing is moving towards and my guess is that if the healthcare system in the U.S continues to flounder as it has pre and current ACA then we'll probably begin to see even independents move that direction. I'm on medicare , I know how it works. I went to ER a bill for $3,228 Medicare paid $256 Advantage paid $177 I paid $324 Hospitals and private Drs would go berserk at that reimbursement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 I'm on medicare , I know how it works. I went to ER a bill for $3,228 Medicare paid $256 Advantage paid $177 I paid $324 Hospitals and private Drs would go berserk at that reimbursement That's all well and good, but that still has nothing to do with premiums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 And besides, medicare advantage essentially outsources your medicare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 BUT THE NARRATIVE! HHS analysis finds Cruz amendment lowers premiums, boosts enrollment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 That's all well and good, but that still has nothing to do with premiums. Medicare premium is $110 a month , my advantage (from GM) is $34 a month Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Medicare premium is $110 a month , my advantage (from GM) is $34 a month Theres no way someone over 65 should be paying 1/5th of what I am for much better coverage than I have. This is what I'm talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 (edited) Right, but that's not the entire true premium of how a Medicare plan has been priced because the recipient has been paying taxes on it for a number of years before they receive their first dollar in benefits. If one were to calculate the premium that recipient paid (which would be impossible to do until he/she passes away), you would have to calculate their entire life's worth of Medicare tax contributions, plus post 65 premiums plus whatever Advantage/supplement plan premiums they have and divide it by the number of months they lived after turning 65 or the inception of their Medicare enrollment. That would be the true premium that person paid. So when you say that premiums could fall 60% plus if we went to a Medicare-for-all plan, that could only be true on a per recipient means if the government decided to lower Medicare taxes, because that's where most of the "premiums" would come from, not from what you are paying after you become a Medicare enrollee. Theres no way someone over 65 should be paying 1/5th of what I am for much better coverage than I have. This is what I'm talking about. That's not how it works. Read above Read more here Edited July 19, 2017 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Theres no way someone over 65 should be paying 1/5th of what I am for much better coverage than I have. This is what I'm talking about. The current Social Security tax rate is 6.2% for both employers and employees, and the 2017 maximum earnings amount subject to Social Security tax is $127,200. That tax should be what you earn over that max. Medicare tax should also be much higher for your lifetime work. This is what politicians decided not reasonable of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 .@CoryBooker: Trump’s Idea to Let Obamacare Fail Is ‘Evil’ and ‘Sinister’ It is interesting that Senator Booker concedes that Obamacare will fail as is......................seems like that would be newsworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 (edited) Right, but that's not the entire true premium of how a Medicare plan has been priced because the recipient has been paying taxes on it for a number of years before they receive their first dollar in benefits. If one were to calculate the premium that recipient paid (which would be impossible to do until he/she passes away), you would have to calculate their entire life's worth of Medicare tax contributions, plus post 65 premiums plus whatever Advantage/supplement plan premiums they have and divide it by the number of months they lived after turning 65 or the inception of their Medicare enrollment. That would be the true premium that person paid. So when you say that premiums could fall 60% plus if we went to a Medicare-for-all plan, that could only be true on a per recipient means if the government decided to lower Medicare taxes, because that's where most of the "premiums" would come from, not from what you are paying after you become a Medicare enrollee. That's not how it works. Read above Read more here Your own article contradicts your post. Let’s quote Mr. Obama himself from an appearance last September before an American Association of Retired Persons audience: “I want to emphasize, Medicare and Social Security are not handouts. You’ve paid into these programs your whole lives. You’ve earned them.” To this we say, weelllll, not really. The situation is more complicated than that. As it stands now, these entitlements are ponzi schemes, taking from workers and giving to retirees. Edited July 19, 2017 by joesixpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 As it stands now, these entitlements are ponzi schemes, taking from workers and giving to retirees. Tell that to the politicians who made these plans. I had no say what so ever. The future of healthcare is what you tell your representatives what to do. I don't think they will even listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Tell that to the politicians who made these plans. I had no say what so ever. The future of healthcare is what you tell your representatives what to do. I don't think they will even listen. No, too many geriatrics would come at them. It'd be like night of the living dead in DC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 .@CoryBooker: Trumps Idea to Let Obamacare Fail Is Evil and Sinister It is interesting that Senator Booker concedes that Obamacare will fail as is......................seems like that would be newsworthy What government programs would not fail without constant tweaking? Literally our whole government would fail if Congress couldn't pass a new budget. What, do you think Social Securiry has been untouched since the 1970s? Personally I think Republicans need to play ball and start thinking about how to make the public/private mix work best. The country's opinion is already turning towards a single payer system. I personally believe a hybrid is the best way to go but if they let the hybrid fail they will lose people very fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 The Republicans are split, the Democrats will never vote for a Republican plan, so nothing is going to happen until either the Democrats see it in their advantage to work with the Republicans or the ACA is repealed. The Democrats have shouldered the blame for the ACA for nearly 8 years and would like nothing better than a new plan, all Republican, to switch who gets the blame. Washington politics as usual. Except it was their guy that championed it and signed it, so they'll defend it whatever it takes even though it sucks. It's good if you get the Medicaid subsidy. Otherwise, not so much IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Is there really a great groundswell of popular feeling to make changes? Obamacare is now popular It's popular because if you hate Trump and he's trying to get rid of it, it's gotta be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts