I don't see many details in that proposal. That is where the problem lies, the details.
Yup.
I don't see many details in that proposal. That is where the problem lies, the details.
I prefer the guy working for the insurance company who gets paid for performance (i.e. his bonuses are based on how many claims he successfully denies).I want Charles Rangel to decide.
Ha
The fact that Medicare is a govt program and tens of millions of citizens are already enrolled is ofter thrown out in these discussions. Well, let's apply the Medicare example to the question of coverage and who is allowed to have what. If the new govt health plan covers the same procedures, treatments and drugs as Medicare today and the rules are determined in the same way, does that sound good to you? Or are you saying the future plan needs to be more restrictive than Medicare with more limitations applying to certain people in certain situations?
Not true mew. Apparently you have this idea that the eimployer-linked coverage is the god-given model........
But WE don't. Not by any means.
If you are getting at denying a treatment to someone just because they are old, I don't favor that at all. That said, I can imagine a situation where someone might feel like they are not getting something they want paid for when in fact it makes no sense to have the treatment. But this is more of an education issue than a coverage issue.
(Where did you get the idea that I had that idea about the idea of health care -)
Ahhhh..... Noooo....... Not getting at anything other than exactly what I said. And specifically NOT the issue of "denying a treatment just because they are old."
We were discussing limitations on what coverage and for who a new nationalized health plan should have. Trying to get away from generalized examples, I simply asked if you would be comfortable with the same limitations on what and who that Medicare has today. Just trying to get a handle on where you stand today beyond the examples. You seem to be saying that you'd be for more limitations.
If the new govt health plan covers the same procedures, treatments and drugs as Medicare today and the rules are determined in the same way, does that sound good to you? Or are you saying the future plan needs to be more restrictive than Medicare with more limitations applying to certain people in certain situations?
If the new govt health plan covers the same procedures, treatments and drugs as Medicare today and the rules are determined in the same way, does that sound good to you?
I prefer the guy working for the insurance company who gets paid for performance (i.e. his bonuses are based on how many claims he successfully denies).
The only difference I can tell between my health care and what my parents get through Medicare is that they pay less, don't have to worry about pre-existing conditions, and can travel anywhere in the country without fear of losing coverage.
The way incentives are set, good old Charlie Rangle has an incentive to make sure his voters get all the health care they possibly want or need. .
.
So, I agree with your statementn regarding our parents. But, less so for ourselves and our kids.
I have said that I favor Medicare for all.
It is not knock-me-down cheap; I pay about $400/month in premiums alone, almost half to Medicare itself.
Couples with plans of living on $25,000/yr might want to give this some thought. Even after attaining Medicare age your medical insurance premiums will be in the neighborhood of $10,000 /yr.
I don't see many details in that proposal. That is where the problem lies, the details.
The Rockefeller amendment proposes 12.5% of AGI for maximum out of pocket each year.
Thanks for a great summary!
This part about capping payments at ~13% of AGI sounds great, but I have a hard timing seeing how it can be done. The median family income in the US is about $50K (AGI is lower) meaning that the median health care spending would be capped at less than $6,250 per family. Meanwhile we spend $4,200 per person on health care as a nation. I guess the balance is paid for in new taxes? Seems like a pretty big gap to fill.
Two different caps: one on maximum out of pocket and the other on premiums. These are separate. So, you could end up spending 13% of your income on premiums and another 12.5% to hit the maximum out of pocket if you had a bad year. At least under one scenario.
The problem with the tendency to means test everything and the "percentage of AGI" thing is that when they do it enough, it removes the incentive to keep working hard and paying taxes any more than you absolutely need to. Do it enough and you run the risk of turning ants into grasshoppers.
I agree that lower income people won't be able to pay the "full freight" on their health care. But if we go to the means testing well too many times, we run the risk of encouraging people to stop working and reduce their means -- becoming a tax consumer rather than a tax payer. I know I have my eye on that and it is likely to cause me to FIRE on a lower income sooner rather than later if it continues.
I don't know if I'm a statistical outlier, but I tend to look at what I call the "incremental value of w*rk." Simply put, when working hard and paying taxes doesn't produce enough of a lifestyle boost over working minimally (if at all), paying almost no tax and letting the government subsidize my needs, I'm going to get off the hamster wheel and start consuming tax dollars instead of being a net tax payer. We're not there yet, but the winds seem to be blowing in that direction.I am not too worried about the moral hazard argument. People like to work and like to make money. I see all the guys I used to work with, many have more money than I do. But they don't ER.
I don't know if I'm a statistical outlier, but I tend to look at what I call the "incremental value of w*rk." Simply put, when working hard and paying taxes doesn't produce enough of a lifestyle boost over working minimally (if at all), paying almost no tax and letting the government subsidize my needs, I'm going to get off the hamster wheel and start consuming tax dollars instead of being a net tax payer. We're not there yet, but the winds seem to be blowing in that direction.
I don't like being that way, but at some point if they continue to do it enough with higher income taxes, more payroll taxes and more means-tested goodies, I'm a schmuck if I keep working. Of course, it helps to have the FIRE mindset (and no debt) to even make this an option. People who spend, spend, spend and have a crushing debt load may not have that option.