Did ya know: If you disenroll from Medicare, you give up your SS?

[samclem]

You are missing something! The point... if medicare were to allow people to opt out... it would be a luxury that the wealthy could afford! . . .
It is a simple point... those of us that are not rich need that program.

Exactly. We're stuck with it, and the waiting lists are long. Don't you want more money in Medicare to help pay for the care of the elderly? Don't you want Mr and Mrs Richie Rich to get out of line so the line is shorter for you--while you wait to see one of the two doctors who are still willing to accept Medicare patients? These rich folks are NOT asking for their Medicare premiums back--they are offering to leave that money in the Medicare pot for someone else to use. How can you be opposed to that use of resources to help the elderly, unless we aren't really trying to get medical care to people, we're just trying to "make everyone equal."

I thought the working poor would get a tax credit to enable the purchase of insurance. I thought the new program was about private insurance health exchanges.

Well, I learn something new everyday. Could you post a link?

Don't feel alone, lots of people are learning new things about this new law every day. As a legislator once said "We have to pass this law so you can see what's in it." The baby is on the doorstep now--she's not too pretty.
Anyway, Medicaid is a government single payer system, lots of the law's boosters should be thrilled that so many people will get their health coverage this way, through the much talked about "public option."

A link:
From the Kaiser Family Foundation: Understanding Medicaid's Role in our Health Care System

Currently, Medicaid eligibility for adults is very limited in most states. In the median state, parents are not eligible unless they are below 64% of the poverty level ($14,112 for a family of four), and in
most states, adults without dependent children are not eligible regardless of their income level . . . Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), Medicaid will expand in 2014 to nearly everyone up
to 133% of the poverty level, reaching 16 million more people by 2019 . . .

 

[chinaco]

Dear clown

,

Some of us might opt out because we may live in (for example) Mexico and expect to pay for our health care privately.

I am back to considering my fall-back retirement option of robbing a bank in Canada. In the worst case, I will get away with it.

Don't misread my rant...

In any complex situation there are circumstances and situations that do not fit perfectly. Is that one... perhaps.

And if that were the real objective... well, I understand. I cannot say that I disagree. I don't wish to see anyone slighted... even the truly wealthy!

Forget about that article for a minute. Let's cut to the chase...

BS debate aside..

Do you believe Medicare should be chipped away and undermined... possibly destroyed?

If so, why? Help me understand how it benefits any of us.

 

[chinaco]

...
A link:
From the Kaiser Family Foundation: Understanding Medicaid's Role in our Health Care System

Thanks.

 

[M Paquette]

Do you believe Medicare should be chipped away and undermined... possibly destroyed?

If so, why? Help me understand how it benefits any of us.

Maybe the IHOP will be less crowded for the Early Bird Special?

I'm sure there's some sort of Free Market or Rugged Individualist argument coming. If we just fix up the Demand side, why, things will be right as rain. Meanwhile, the Supply side of the equation quietly continues to be dominated by an old fashioned guild system and an oligopoly on pharmaceuticals.

I'm just here for the bacon.

 

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

Do you believe Medicare should be chipped away and undermined... possibly destroyed?

No, not undermined. Destroyed, yes.

I am not against universal healthcare. On the contrary!

My objection is how we are doing it. Our expensive limited accessibility healthcare system is being propped up like the housing industry was being propped up, at great expense and to everyone's eventual detriment. I see a better model in other countries. Once again, the US has learned nothing from the experience of others and is acting to perpetuate special interests at all costs. And if the OP's conclusion is accurate, there is no escape for any of us (except members of Congress, who are immune from the consequences of their decisions). I guess the most generous thing that can be said is that our representatives thought that anything would be better than nothing. I have my doubts.

Meanwhile, the Supply side of the equation quietly continues to be dominated by an old fashioned guild system and an oligopoly on pharmaceuticals.

+1

I agree with samclem's point. And I am in no way rich. When I turn 65 I will get $400/mo in pension and our income from SS will be much more than that from our investments.

 

[Brat]

Here is the issue I have had with both Fed. health insurance and Medicare. Medicare is always primary which means that health care providers who treat me must accept Medicare's rates. After our moved I had a problem finding physicians who would accept new patients where Medicare is primary. If I had refused Medicare that wouldn't be an issue.

If I opted out of Medicare A & B all I would loose would be co-pays.

 

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

Danger ahead, Brat.

 

[chinaco]

No, not undermined. Destroyed, yes.

I am not against universal healthcare. On the contrary!

My objection is how we are doing it. ...

Ok.

But Medicare is not the problem, per se... it is our overall approach to health care... our patch quilt system (with holes in it).

Destroyed... not a good idea unless there is a viable alternative...

I agree our system is broken, unfair, not meeting our needs, etc. I also agree that there is a better way...

 

[Moemg]

Don,

So do I explicitly have to enroll in Medicare before I turn 65? or does that happen automatically?

When you get closer to 65 you will be getting all kinds of information in the mail about Medicare or if you would like to see it early go to their website and download their booklet . Basically they want you to apply three months before you turn 65 . I also have Federal BCBS the top plan but I am thinking of going to the basic BCBS plan once I am eligible for Medicare as there is a lot of overlapping benefits . Having the two insurances covers most of your deductibles and co-pays so it is worth having .

 

[Brat]

GEHA may be a better value than BCBS basic.

 

[Freein05]

I love Medicare. I went on it last year in June and my health care costs are less than half of what they were in a private plan and I have more choices of doctors and hospitals.

 

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

But Medicare is not the problem, per se... it is our overall approach to health care... our patch quilt system (with holes in it).

Destroyed... not a good idea unless there is a viable alternative...

I agree our system is broken, unfair, not meeting our needs, etc. I also agree that there is a better way...

At this point, IMHO, destroyed would be better than what we have. And I do mean totally destroyed. To the point that our doctors and nurses (and hospital administrators--and legislators, with any luck) consider leaving the country. (They won't, but they would make a lot of noise. This is the best country in the world for someone working in the health care industry, and always will be.)

There is at least one system that I like better. (And it is not Canada, but I might go for Canada as an alternative to the American Way. I can do that. You can't. I have options that most do not have. It is not right, and I am sorry for that, but it is what it is.)

And, unless I get riled up again, that is my last word on the subject.

 

[GregLee]

When my wife and I reached 65, we could have applied for Medicare and gotten Part A for free. Well, at no extra charge, I suppose I should say. We didn't bother, because we both had insurance through work. But we seemed to pass into a strange limbo with regard to our health insurer (HMSA), which once a year would stop paying our medical bills. I'd call them up and ask why, and they'd tell me it was because I hadn't told them whether I had Medicare. (They hadn't asked.) So I'd say no, I didn't, and the billing person I was talking to would say, oh, then we'll pay the bill -- just have your doctor resubmit the claim. And they did pay. But the next year I'd have to do the same dance with them.

My best guess is that when you could have Medicare paying your bills instead of another insurer, that other insurer really, really doesn't want to pay (understandably), but is precluded from requiring you to apply for Medicare. My insurer wouldn't even suggest that I apply for Medicare Part A (I asked), though they did point out to me that I had that option.

 

[Brat]

When you are employed and have health insurance that policy is primary.

 

[haha]

There's no incentive to serve a large population of consumers by an insurance after a certain age? There was no insurance for anyone over 65 before Medicare in 1965?

Very little.

 

[haha]

And, unless I get riled up again, that is my last word on the subject.

Oh, come on, more words please?

 

[eridanus]

R She said and I quote, "Americans have a legal obligation to accept subpar government health benefits". She then argued with the implied stance that "to be "entitled" to a government benefit is to be obligated to accept it".

When/where did she state this? It's not in the decision. I googled it and there were 5+ pages of secondary and tertiary sources. Is there a court transcript?

 

[M Paquette]

When/where did she state this? It's not in the decision. I googled it and there were 5+ pages of secondary and tertiary sources. Is there a court transcript?

Heh. Nowhere. People are quoting a line from a Wall Street Journal opinion piece (the Review & Outlook section) as though that was what the judge said.

The actual Hall vs Sebelius (District Court, District of Columbia 2011) opinion from Judge Collyer does not contain that line.

That's why I tend not to believe blind citations on the Intertubes.

 

[Freein05]

Here is the issue I have had with both Fed. health insurance and Medicare. Medicare is always primary which means that health care providers who treat me must accept Medicare's rates. After our moved I had a problem finding physicians who would accept new patients where Medicare is primary. If I had refused Medicare that wouldn't be an issue.

If I opted out of Medicare A & B all I would loose would be co-pays.

If you are over 60 try getting health insurance at any price if you have a preexisting condition. Remember why Medicare came into existence. It came into existence because insurance companies would not insure the elderly.

Somehow cost of health care in this country must be brought under control. Both insurance companies and Medicare are trying to do it. But I feel the whole structure of our health care system needs to be overhauled. Starting with medical school.

 

[Brat]

I won't argue with that!

IMHO we should have more Nurse Practitioners providing routine health care. It is my understanding that by the time the cost of education & training of internal medicine MDs is factored in, NPs make more money although they are paid less.

It is a pity that so many physicians have huge education costs.

 

[haha]

I won't argue with that!

IMHO we should have more Nurse Practitioners providing routine health care. It is my understanding that by the time the cost of education & training of internal medicine MDs is factored in, NPs make more money although they are paid less.

It is a pity that so many physicians have huge education costs.

If they were less, we, the patients would just pay twice. Once to train them, and once more to satisfy their outrageous bills.

I can't imagine any doc voluntarily lowering his rate because his education cost less.

Of course in many countries where education is subsidized, the governement controls what physicians can charge, and that seems to work, if not perfectly at least better than what we currently have in the USA.

Ha

 

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

Oh, come on, more words please?

Ya gotta rile me first, ha. I am doing mellow today.

 

[Sossy]

My insurance (benefit from being a state employee) requires that we get Medicare as soon as we are eligible. At that point, Medicare becomes the primary insurance & BCBS secondary. Interestingly, there was a court ruling that veterans are not REQUIRED to use VA medical services. Many vets choose to use private insurance because it is better. Learned this while managing an indigent care clinic, when we had to research whether vets were considered to have other coverage available.

So - we can be forced into Medicare, but vets get off the hook. Not begrudging them that out-clause, just find it interesting that it is not similarly applied to Medicare.

Anyone got info on how much the premiums are after you hit the magic age?

 

[GregLee]

My insurance (benefit from being a state employee) requires that we get Medicare as soon as we are eligible. At that point, Medicare becomes the primary insurance & BCBS secondary.

Yes, same here (state = Hawaii). In order to get the state retirement benefit (paying my Medicare premium), I had to get Medicare. But then, how could the state pay my Medicare premium unless I had Medicare? So, it all hangs together.