Average Health Care Costs in Retirement

[obgyn65]

Interesting update this morning from USA Today :

Health insurers learn how to woo customers: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...surers-scramble-to-market-themselves/1744147/

 

[Free_at_49]

Interesting update this morning from USA Today :

Health insurers learn how to woo customers: Health care overhaul means insurers will pitch wares to individuals

It’s very sad to read that, Americans still see healthcare as a business. Why should insurance brokers be taking a share of your health care dollars? Insurance companies are just unnecessary middlemen.

 

[Free_at_49]

From what you guys are saying, for people over 65, Medicare does NOT cover everything as it does in Canada and the EU. So the threat of huge unexpected expenses scares retirees into buying additional insurance? $300/mo.

A few days ago I got my annual renewal from BlueCross, a 30% increase to ~$320/month and it pays for NOTHING! It only kicks-in after I’ve paid the first $5,000. And in a few years when I’m 65 I will still be paying the same or more for supplemental insurance?

 

[REWahoo]

I pay $45/mo for a Medicare supplement policy which has a $2,000 deductible before it kicks in.

 

[nun]

From what you guys are saying, for people over 65, Medicare does NOT cover everything as it does in Canada and the EU. So the threat of huge unexpected expenses scares retirees into buying additional insurance? $300/mo.

In the US Medicare Part A is free, Part B costs $99 per month and then you have to buy a supplemental policy to cover drugs and stuff that parts A and B don't cover. You'll be looking at around $200/month min and there will be deductibles and co-pays too. The worst aspect of the system is it's complexity and "patch work quilt" of numerous coverages.

So the answer to your question is that US retirees have to pay on going health care premiums in retirement even after a lifetime of paying for medicare through payroll taxes and on top of that there's out of pocket costs. It's not like the UK where there's no out of pocket costs for the NHS and no premiums to pay.

 

[Bestwifeever]

In the US Medicare Part A is free, Part B costs $99 per month and then you have to buy a supplemental policy to cover drugs and stuff that parts A and B don't cover. You'll be looking at around $200/month min and there will be deductibles and co-pays too. The worst aspect of the system is it's complexity and "patch work quilt" of numerous coverages.

So the answer to your question is that US retirees have to pay on going health care premiums in retirement even after a lifetime of paying for medicare through payroll taxes and on top of that there's out of pocket costs. It's not like the UK where there's no out of pocket costs for the NHS and no premiums to pay.

Gee I wonder (not really) where the money comes from that does pay for all that UK care.

 

[nun]

Obviously general taxation revenue so the UK retiree contributes through that. But the UK taxation levels are similar to those in the US. The US retiree also gets a raw deal because of the inflated cost of US healthcare and the ridiculous complexity of the system.

 

[youbet]

Gee I wonder (not really) where the money comes from that does pay for all that UK care.

The beauty of their system is that the money doesn't have to come from anywhere. Everything is free because it costs nothing! Docs, clinics, hosptitals, drugs...... all exist at zero cost due to superior management of the system by gov't.

 

[Lazarus]

The beauty of their system is that the money doesn't have to come from anywhere. Everything is free because it costs nothing! Docs, clinics, hosptitals, drugs...... all exist at zero cost due to superior management of the system by gov't.

 

[nun]

The beauty of their system is that the money doesn't have to come from anywhere. Everything is free because it costs nothing! Docs, clinics, hosptitals, drugs...... all exist at zero cost due to superior management of the system by gov't.

The UK system has many issues and is only free at the point of service. ie there's no billing to the patient form the hospital or doctor. The NHS costs a lot, but half as much per capital as US healthcare, and people fund it through taxation. Americans should be addressing the outrageous costs and complexity of their system as they are far greater than in any other country. There are many more efficient health systems around the world so the US has examples that could save money and reduce complexity. It's the US consumer of health care that looses out in the current system.

 

[youbet]

The UK system has many issues and is only free at the point of service. ie there's no billing to the patient form the hospital or doctor. The NHS costs a lot

Gee..... From the tone of many comments here, I was led to believe that the UK system (and several other national health systems) were free. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[MichaelB]

The UK system has many issues and is only free at the point of service. ie there's no billing to the patient form the hospital or doctor. The NHS costs a lot, but half as much per capital as US healthcare, and people fund it through taxation. Americans should be addressing the outrageous costs and complexity of their system as they are far greater than in any other country. There are many more efficient health systems around the world so the US has examples that could save money and reduce complexity. It's the US consumer of health care that looses out in the current system.

True, but in the US the practitioner also loses. What most demotivates doctors is the administrative burden imposed by the different payers Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers. The shame of the US system is there are so many put off by it.

 

[MichaelB]

Gee..... From the tone of many comments here, I was led to believe that the UK system (and several other national health systems) were free. Thanks for clearing that up.

Well, at half the cost of the US health care with better coverage, "almost free" "almost" describes it.

 

[Free_at_49]

The UK system has many issues and is only free at the point of service. ie there's no billing to the patient form the hospital or doctor. The NHS costs a lot, but half as much per capital as US healthcare, and people fund it through taxation. Americans should be addressing the outrageous costs and complexity of their system as they are far greater than in any other country. There are many more efficient health systems around the world so the US has examples that could save money and reduce complexity. It's the US consumer of health care that looses out in the current system.

Same thing in Canada, the per capita cost of health care is about 1/2 of the US and healthcare is better, and doctors there are not businessmen or drug salesmen.

 

[Free_at_49]

OK so next year “Health Insurance Exchanges” will go into effect. I keep googling but I can’t get any details. Will I be able to buy a plan that covers ALL my healthcare without additional expenses?

 

[nun]

Gee..... From the tone of many comments here, I was led to believe that the UK system (and several other national health systems) were free. Thanks for clearing that up.

I'd never claim that healthcare is free and if I neglected to say things like "free at point of service" or "no out of pocket costs or premiums" I'm sorry. UK healthcare will cost the average person half that of the average US person and there's never a worry about being covered. The thing that saddens me is that many Americans with health insurance aren't more outraged that they pay twice as much as people in other countries for poorer coverage.

 

[nun]

OK so next year “Health Insurance Exchanges” will go into effect. I keep googling but I can’t get any details. Will I be able to buy a plan that covers ALL my healthcare without additional expenses?

Yes you will, but the premiums will be very high. You would be looking at a "Gold" plan with no deductible or out of pocket expenses.

 

[youbet]

Well, at half the cost of the US health care with better coverage, "almost free" "almost" describes it.

I think you're missing my point in your rush to make yours.

I'm saying that folks from systems like they have in the UK or Canada often refer to it as "free" and do a great bit of associated boasting. In fact there are costs (perhaps a cost structure superior to that in the USA, but still costs) involved. It's just "free" to the end user.

For example, I'm sure that here in the USA if we taxed the Billionaires to pay for "free" health care for eveyone, it would be referred to as free health care by the masses of folks not being taxed to pay for it. The Billionaires might feel differently.........

The concept of no cost to society and free to the end user seem to be used interchangeably. Perhaps that's not appropriate?

BTW, I'm eager for USA health care costs to be reduced to typical world levels. No argument there.

 

[MichaelB]

I think you're missing my point in your rush to make yours.

I'm saying that folks from systems like they have in the UK or Canada often refer to it as "free" and do a great bit of associated boasting. In fact there are costs (perhaps a cost structure superior to that in the USA, but still costs) involved, it's just "free" to the end user.

For example, I'm sure that here in the USA if we taxed the Billionaires to pay for "free" health care for eveyone, it would be referred to as free health care by the masses. The Billionaires might feel differently.........

The concept of no cost to society and free to the end user seem to be used interchangeably.

BTW, I'm eager for USA health care costs to be reduced to typlical world levels. No argument there.

I got your point. My Canadian in-laws view their health care costs not as free but paid through taxes. No illusions about who is paying. Same with my English friends. In fact, the only place where I have heard this reference is here in the US.

 

[Alan]

Gee..... From the tone of many comments here, I was led to believe that the UK system (and several other national health systems) were free. Thanks for clearing that up.

Just in case you really don't know how it works in the UK, then, just like the USA, separate taxes are deducted from every paycheck to fund healthcare.

In the USA those Medicare taxes only subsidize part of your health care costs once you get to age 65, and most folks also buy supplemental (Medigap) insurance when they get Medicare.

In the UK those healthcare taxes provide healthcare all your life, not just when you are 65. Many people also buy supplemental private insurance, or it is provided in employee benefits. Just as in most every other industrialized country the private health insurance companies in the UK have to be non-profit organizations, but you still see them advertising for business similar to the article the OP posted.

 

[Mulligan]

I'd. Ever claim that healthcare is free and if I neglected to say things like "free at point of service" or "no out of pocket costs or premiums" I'm sorry. UK healthcare will cost the average person half that of the average US person and there's never a worry about being covered. The thing that saddens me is that many Americans with health insurance aren't more outraged that they pay twice as much as people in other countries for poorer coverage.

Probably the reason why Americans aren't universally outraged is from the fact we are divided into many subgroup that are affected in different ways. Some like my GF, have gold plated plans ($150 yearly deductible, what a sweet deal) that are paid completely by the company. There isn't much outrage coming from that workplace I promise you. Some like me, have dirt cheap high deductible plans, and have avoided getting sick or hurt, so the sticker shock hasn't hit home. Medicaid helps another segment. While others have got hit disproportionally or even uninsurable, are obviously the ones who would want change, and I certainly don't blame them.

 

[youbet]

I got your point. My Canadian in-laws view their health care costs not as free but paid through taxes. No illusions about who is paying. Same with my English friends. In fact, the only place where I have heard this reference is here in the US.

Good anecdotal inputs. I'm sure there are millions of stories.......

I have some that are different. Folks we sit with in the dining hall at fishing camp "Up Nort" every summer are from Canada and Australia and go on and on about their health care system being "free," that they don't have any claim forms or paperwork to do since there are no charges, etc. They pooh pooh any mention that somehow, somewhere, someone is paying for it.

Again, I'm all for the USA sharply reducing our health care costs per capita. In fact, I'm much more interested in that than in making our health care system "free" to more and more participants. It seems that our focus today is on providing "free" or subsidized care and not on cost control. Perhaps this is the only way to get started, but I'll be glad when we move on to finding ways to drop our per capita cost by half or more, hopefully much more.

 

[nun]

I think you're missing my point in your rush to make yours.

I'm saying that folks from systems like they have in the UK or Canada often refer to it as "free" and do a great bit of associated boasting. In fact there are costs (perhaps a cost structure superior to that in the USA, but still costs) involved. It's just "free" to the end user.


BTW, I'm eager for USA health care costs to be reduced to typlical world levels. No argument there.

People from other countries understand that they pay for healthcare through taxation or premiums they pay to private insurers. They tend to "boast" about it only when they hear of the costs, restrictive coverage and possibility of actually not being covered in the USA. They might not consider it boasting, just pointing out the superiority of their system......the people on Medicare or with another US insurance scheme might well interpret it as boasting.

 

[nun]

Probably the reason why Americans aren't universally outraged is from the fact we are divided into many subgroup that are affected in different ways.

+1, the complexity and fragmentation of the US system makes it difficult to understand exactly what you are getting. Also some people get excellent care at a reasonable cost to them because of big subsidies. I'm one of those because I'm on a state health plan, $100/month premium, $30 co-pays and no deductibles. The total insurance cost will still be far higher than in other countries, but most people who get the same care are not motivated to complain because they don't experience the costs.

 

[nun]

Again, I'm all for the USA sharply reducing our health care costs per capita. In fact, I'm much more interested in that than in making our health care system "free" to more and more participants. It seems that our focus today is on providing "free" or subsidized care and not on cost control. Perhaps this is the only way to get started, but I'll be glad when we move on to finding ways to drop our per capita cost by half or more, hopefully much more.

Take a look at what's happening in MA. From the state that brought you Romneycare now comes "cost control"

Governor Deval Patrick signs health cost-control bill - Boston.com