Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-19-2007, 07:45 AM   #21
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
maddythebeagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by lets-retire View Post
I have spoke with several people who have reported similar overcharges.

So how do you fix it? Using insurance companies would not stop the problem. going to a nationalized healtcare run by the government would solve that problem, but I think would cause more problems than the current system.
I believe they do that to make up for their costs from below market reinbursements...
__________________

__________________
maddythebeagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 09-19-2007, 08:32 AM   #22
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 768
Hillary wants to open up Medicare to all. Medicare part A costs $410/mo. now for those who pay for it themselves. Part B is another $93.50/mo. The prescription program would add about another $25/mo. I wonder if $500/mo is about what people would be charged under Hillary's plan.

Medicare Web Site
__________________

__________________
Michael is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2007, 09:19 AM   #23
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
retire@40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
Hillary wants to open up Medicare to all. Medicare part A costs $410/mo. now for those who pay for it themselves. Part B is another $93.50/mo. The prescription program would add about another $25/mo. I wonder if $500/mo is about what people would be charged under Hillary's plan.
At $530 a month, there would still be a large part of the population that could not afford it. It's an answer for some (including me), but not for all.
__________________
No man is free who is not master of himself. --- Epictetus
Enjoy Yourself (It's Later Than You Think). --- Guy Lombardo
retire@40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2007, 09:26 AM   #24
Recycles dryer sheets
tomz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by retire@40 View Post
At $530 a month, there would still be a large part of the population that could not afford it. It's an answer for some (including me), but not for all.
Part of her plan (with specifics to be worked out by Congress) is to provide a tax credit/rebate if your health insurance costs exceed a certain percentage of your income. With an individual mandate, that is the only way to insure that everyone can get insurance.
__________________
tomz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2007, 09:37 AM   #25
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
FIRE'd@51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,315
I think $500 a month per adult sounds about right, since the current amount spent on healthcare in the US averages something like $6000 per person per year. Since Hillary is proposing guaranteed-issue and community-rated policies, one would expect that they would be charged the average rate. Of course, this would be reduced by the cost savings she would realize by "modernizing" the system and reducing some insurance company overhead. As I understand it, she would provide tax credits to help lower income folks buy insurance. Of course, having some type of deductible or copays could reduce the monthly premiums.

I'm still curious how the insurance will be tied to the individual, since it appears that much of it will still be provided by employers, and therefore, not standardized. As far as I can tell, she hasn't explained how the risk pools would work.
__________________
FIRE'd@51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2007, 09:50 AM   #26
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
teejayevans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by FIRE'd@51 View Post
I think $500 a month per adult sounds about right

I'm still curious how the insurance will be tied to the individual, since it appears that much of it will still be provided by employers, and therefore, not standardized. As far as I can tell, she hasn't explained how the risk pools would work.
$500 per senior adult maybe, not healthy younger adults, that can get
$100 or less. What will happen is all the healthy ones will keep their
individual insurance, the sick will go with medicare.

I would also expect to seem some basic standard that will apply to all, but
nothing prevents private insurance adding extras, giving them extra value.

I would also would expect employers to get out of the health insurance
business, like Ford & GM are trying to do, and would be surprise if any
bill isn't corporation friendly.
TJ
__________________
teejayevans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2007, 10:02 AM   #27
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
FIRE'd@51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by teejayevans View Post
$500 per senior adult maybe, not healthy younger adults, that can get $100 or less. What will happen is all the healthy ones will keep their individual insurance, the sick will go with medicare.
If that's true, we will still have adverse selection, and those who choose medicare will have to pay much more. This is why I raised the issue of risk pools. IMO, for the system to work properly, everyone would have to share the risk in a very large diversified risk pool which would include the healthy as well as the sick, the young as well as old, etc. Otherwise, we will end up with a system similar to what we have now, with the insurance companies "cherry picking" the more healthy and forcing the less healthy into medicare.
__________________
FIRE'd@51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2007, 10:27 AM   #28
Recycles dryer sheets
tomz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 251
In her plan, everyone is required to have coverage and everyone is in the pool. As such, there would be no adverse selection. There are hints in the proposal on her website that the plan will not be fully community-rated. It wasn't clear. To be honest, all of these details would be worked out by Congress. I don't think she plans to submit a 1400 page document this time.
__________________
tomz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2007, 11:08 AM   #29
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,798
If everyone must have insurance the only way to enforce it is for the government to supply it (read increase in taxes). Having it available for people to purchase with tax credits is a decent idea, but, those who are living paycheck to paycheck, still won't be able to afford the insurance payments.

If a plan similar to this is passed I think slowly employer provided insurance will offer less benefits, eventually leading to the person opting for the Medicare type insurance. Companies will be more profitable but the employees wouldn't see any real benefit. In fact they would see a net decline of income.
__________________
You don't want to work. You want to live like a king, but the big bad world don't owe you a thing. Get over it--The Eagles
lets-retire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2007, 11:30 AM   #30
Moderator Emeritus
Martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: minnesota
Posts: 13,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by lets-retire View Post

If a plan similar to this is passed I think slowly employer provided insurance will offer less benefits, eventually leading to the person opting for the Medicare type insurance. Companies will be more profitable but the employees wouldn't see any real benefit. In fact they would see a net decline of income.

I don't know about that. Large employers almost inevitably offer health insurance. Fewer and fewer small employers are offering these benefits because of the cost. Her plan will help small employers subsidize that cost.

I don't know how she plans to enforce the requirement to maintain insurance. But it is vital to have some mechanism to require people to have insurance. Wyden's plan addressed the issue by having premiums paid as part of your income taxes and if you had no income to pay taxes on, you were assumed to be poor enough to get your health policy for free.

I heard that her proposed cap on premiums would be 2.5% of your income.
__________________
.


No more lawyer stuff, no more political stuff, so no more CYA

Martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2007, 11:34 AM   #31
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 347
On Drudge today Hillery says she can see a time when you'll have to show your Health Insurance card to get a job. That would cure the issue of how does the govm't make sure everyone has "paid" for their health insurance. Sounds like an oppertinity for those who are supplying fake documents to "unregestered forgin workers" to crank out fake insurance papers.

Or are we going to give these workers "free" healthcare because they do not have enough income to purchase it??
__________________
USCG regulations say you have to go out. They don't say anything about coming back.
USK Coastie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2007, 12:13 PM   #32
Recycles dryer sheets
tomz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by USK Coastie View Post
On Drudge today Hillery says she can see a time when you'll have to show your Health Insurance card to get a job. That would cure the issue of how does the govm't make sure everyone has "paid" for their health insurance. Sounds like an oppertinity for those who are supplying fake documents to "unregestered forgin workers" to crank out fake insurance papers.
She was speaking theoretically, but that didn't stop Drudge from posting a big headline as if it were fact. Details like this will be worked out by Congress when they take up the legislation. There are lots of ways to verify that someone has health insurance. Wyden's approach is one. I am impressed that she has the guts to admit that she made a mistake last time (unlike some other politicians who shall remain nameless) and is taking a more reality-based approach this time around.
__________________
tomz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2007, 01:17 PM   #33
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomz View Post
Part of her plan (with specifics to be worked out by Congress) is to provide a tax credit/rebate if your health insurance costs exceed a certain percentage of your income. With an individual mandate, that is the only way to insure that everyone can get insurance.
This would be more of an incentive to retire early -- reducing your income to be eligible for heavily subsidized health care.

This is why I think health care reforms based on "income levels" or funded by payroll taxes is a horrible idea -- I think it strongly incentivizes dropping out of the workforce, thus turning net taxpayers into net tax consumers. And as a result I think any estimates of cost would be greatly underestimated if they don't account for those people who are close to being able to retire early on a lower income but for the health care situation. I'm probably 5-10 years from that point myself.

I think the biggest flaw in this plan, though, is failure to separate employment from health insurance. Any plan that doesn't mostly (if not completely) sever the ties between employer and health insurance is bound to be tinkering around the edges.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2007, 01:43 PM   #34
Recycles dryer sheets
tomz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
I think the biggest flaw in this plan, though, is failure to separate employment from health insurance. Any plan that doesn't mostly (if not completely) sever the ties between employer and health insurance is bound to be tinkering around the edges.
In an ideal world, I would agree with you. I'd be happy with single payor, but it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. The Harry and Louise ads, which were a big factor in torpedoing the 1993 efforts, stressed that Hillarycare would limit your choices and that the gov't would choose your doctor for you. That turned off a lot of people who liked the status quo, even though the charge wasn't totally true. This time around, the Harry and Lousie approach holds no water. If you like what you have, you don't have to change. The government isn't telling you to do anything except have insurance. So the 70% who have health insurance through their employer don't have to change anything. No plan is perfect, but imho, this plan (or most of the dems' plans, for that matter) go a long way to reducing the ranks of the uninsured without forcing those who are content with what they have to change anything. The plans also eliminate cherry picking by insurance companies. In the political reality of 2007, I think that is more than "tinkering around the edges".
__________________
tomz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2007, 01:48 PM   #35
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomz View Post
IThe government isn't telling you to do anything except have insurance. So the 70% who have health insurance through their employer don't have to change anything.
The problem here is that most of the 70% covered by employers are probably, as a whole, far more "insurable" than the remaining 30%, who are more likely to be out of work as a result of being older or less physically able to work -- both of which are high-cost health insurance risks.

Personally I'd like to see a severance from employers as a group and make it easier for other non-employer and non-governmental groups to form.

I have some reservations about single-payer but if the current status quo persists and gets worse for a few more years, it wouldn't be a hard sell to convert me despite my libertarian leanings.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2007, 02:22 PM   #36
Recycles dryer sheets
tomz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
The problem here is that most of the 70% covered by employers are probably, as a whole, far more "insurable" than the remaining 30%, who are more likely to be out of work as a result of being older or less physically able to work -- both of which are high-cost health insurance risks.
Actually, based on the latest numbers, only around 60% have insurance through work. From the census bureau:
Quote:
The Census Bureau reported Tuesday, August 28, that the percentage of people covered by employer-based health insurance decreased to 59.7 percent in 2006, from 60.2 percent in 2005, a factor contributing to the rise in the number of uninsured throughout the population.


The percentage and number of uninsured Americans rose in 2006 to 15.8 percent, or 47 million, up from 15.3 percent, or 44.8 million, in 2005.
Do you have any data to support your assumption that people "covered by employers are probably, as a whole, far more "insurable" than the remaining 30%"?

60% have insurance through employer, 15% uninsured, Medicare/Medicaid/Military is about 20% I think. The other 5 percent is private insurance. These numbers may be off a few percent here or there.
__________________
tomz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2007, 02:35 PM   #37
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomz View Post
Do you have any data to support your assumption that people "covered by employers are probably, as a whole, far more "insurable" than the remaining 30%"?
Jeez. Not EVERY speculative or inquisitive opinion needs "hard data" to support it. It's wondering out loud, mostly. It seems intuitive to me that with age discrimination in employment and with the seemingly obvious notion that people who are sick and/or disabled are less likely to be able to maintain employment, it's not a stretch to imagine this is likely the case. And wouldn't these people be more likely to incur more health care costs (and thus rated appropriately)?

And NO, I don't know that for certain. But I'd be amazed to hear facts to the contrary. Note that I said "probably", not for certain as if it were a fact.

When things aren't being cited as *facts*, they don't need to be supported with "data" or else they WOULD be touted as facts. And I'd hate to think people need to preface every sentence with "I am not claiming this as a fact so don't ask for a cite."
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2007, 11:41 PM   #38
Full time employment: Posting here.
Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 781
So, if Hillary's plan is similar to Romney's - I guess my question is....how is that working out? What do the state residents, doctors, nurses, etc. have to say?
__________________
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 12:10 AM   #39
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,049
89.6 million lacked health insurance - Health Care - MSNBC.com

WASHINGTON - More than one-third of the U.S. population under the age of 65 went without health insurance for all or part of the last two years, a consumer group said on Thursday.

The nonprofit Families USA group used data from last month's U.S. Census Bureau report that found 47 million Americans went without health insurance for all of 2006.
__________________
eridanus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 07:46 AM   #40
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,322
If this is a $500/mo health plan, even tax rebates don't help those starting out looking for jobs, in between jobs, minimum wage, etc. A full time min wage person might bring home 1000 per month after tax. How many of those people will opt to pay half their wages for medical insurance in hope of a future rebate? I'd like to see much more detail before I could support such a plan.
__________________

__________________
FinallyRetired is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Safe car part of health plan and/or retirement plan Buckeye Health and Early Retirement 21 07-10-2016 03:58 PM
Obama offers universal health care plan Trek Health and Early Retirement 268 11-21-2007 11:33 AM
Bush's Health Plan--merged threads landover Health and Early Retirement 136 01-27-2007 01:37 PM
Senator Wyden's "health care plan for all Americans" REWahoo Health and Early Retirement 81 12-19-2006 09:04 AM
Kerry health insurance plan questions cc Other topics 22 10-11-2004 06:27 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:12 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.