Medicare is wonderful. Medicare is terrible. Medicare is in trouble. Medicare is wonderful.
Medicare is also complex. People are always suggesting changes. Some wish to extend it. Some wish to eliminate it.
People are running around predicting bankruptcy for Medicare around 2017 or 2019 or whenever. No, it’s not that bad. There would be a shortfall beginning then, not a bankruptcy. It’s not a case of going from 100% immediately to 0%. As much as the politicians wish to avoid biting the bullet, they must address the problem. They faced the same problem a few years back with Social Security. It seems inconceivable that they didn’t deal with Medicare at the same time but we are not speaking of a group of geniuses here.
The most popular suggestion for changing Medicare is intended to salvage it for an extended period. Will it? Yes, but. But? Yes. Medicare is too complex for any changes to be simple.
The suggestion to which I refer is to raise the age for eligibility by two years. Now that was simple. The problem is that strange things will start to happen. Think about it.
Any 66-year old will not necessarily need more health care than any 64-year old but the statisticians will guarantee that the cost of insuring a 66-year old is more expensive than a 64-year old.
Insurance policies that account for expected payouts until Medicare kicks in at age 65 will cost more.
Health care coverage will cost you and/or your employer more. I’m not speaking of just when someone becomes a geezer. Policies will rise for everyone to adjust to the change. Also, remember that state and local governments are employers, so their costs will also be increased.
There is also the consideration of companies with a mandatory retirement at the age of 65. Will you have to go out on the individual policy market (the most expensive) and purchase a policy covering the most expensive age category the private insurance company offers? You don’t want to be ‘bare’ at that age and your income just got reduced.
The estimate by the Kaiser Family Foundation is that the increase for some individuals will be above $2,000 per year. The following figures are predicated by the foundation on the implementation of the change in 2014. It also assumes that the Supreme Court will uphold the recent changes made in health care insurance. If it doesn’t, the costs would be even higher.
Predictions are that 75% of those aged 65 and 66 will pay $2,400 more.ย That may have gotten the attention of some people.
The young people will see an increase of about 8% in the cost of health insurance.
The increased costs to business will be in the neighborhood of $4.5 billion. That either will make US companies less competitive or cause them to eliminate health care benefits for employees.
The government would save a ton of money by not covering those 65- and 66-year olds. So, those on Medicare would benefit from lower costs. Oh, no they wouldn’t. What? Why?
Medicare, as any insurance program, is based on actuarial figures. Eliminating the youngest from the pool eliminates the healthiest from the pool. The increase would be 3%. Medicare benefits but no one else does. Wasn’t the premise to save Medicare money so that it would be sustainable? Well, it does that and that’s the way it is.
I gave a passing mention above to an increase in the costs to states. There would be another. Those 65- and 66-year olds no longer eligible for Medicare but too poor to purchase their own policies would add to the states’ financial burden through MedicAid.
There is a better way. The solution is simple. Medicare-For-All. Eliminating the 30-32% overhead we presently pay private corporations would be a good start. Allowing the CMS to negotiate prices with the drug pushers should reduce the costs by at least 50% – same as the Veterans Administration now pays. Taking advantage of other economies of scale.
You don’t think the government should get involved in health care? Eliminate Medicare? Tell that to seniors. They rate it much higher than private policy holders rate any insurance corporation.
Eliminate MedicAid? So, do we force the hospital emergency rooms to absorb the total costs of indigent care or do we just make sure they don’t obstruct the gutters?
Eliminate SCHIP. Those 7 million children will die some day anyway.
Eliminate the VA. Why should we have to pay the health care costs for veterans?
Eliminate health care benefits for government employees, They are being pampered already by getting paid 78% as much as an equivalent employee in the private sector.
Eliminate the Public Health Service. The CDC is always scaring us with new flus, the return of Smallpox, Polio and such. The PHS has to stick their fingers into such things as sewers, water purity and all of those other things distracting us from American Idol.
Eliminate the subsidy the government provides employers who give their people health care benefits.
Put them all together they may not spell M-O-T-H-E-R but they do add up to the government paying 45% of all health care costs already.
No old people were harmed in the writing of this article.
.
.
You said, “No old people were harmed in the writing of this article.”
Technically, that is true, but the reading of it scared the crap out of me. ๐
I understand. Technically, I was harmed in the writing of it but, thankfully, I’m not yet an old person.
Well then, I’m a young whipper snapper!
๐
Only in our own minds, sadly.
Medicare is a sacred trust with America s seniors and the President s health insurance reform plan will ensure that trust is never broken.Health insurance reform will improve the quality of care in Medicare reduce costs for seniors and make sure Medicare is there for them in the future. Medicare Advantage is part of the Medicare program that allows beneficiaries to receive services via private plans. There is no evidence that this extra payment leads to better quality for Medicare beneficiaries.
I would’t exactly refer to it as sacred. Politicians will salvage it because to fail to do so would ensure the death of their political life. Check out some of my other articles on the reform issue. Sadly, it was not health care reform. It was, more accurately, health insurance reform. It will reduce some costs and the government will see some benefits but the insurance and drug companies will be major beneficiaries, as it will provide them more customers. The Medicare Advantage program, as you say, has no evidence to support it and some indications otherwise. It costs Medicare… Read more »
Sounding Out thanks is simply my little way of saying. Bravo for a fantastic resource. Take On my sweetest wishes for your incoming post.
Very interesting idea, i like it. Are there any forums that you recommend I join?
Sadly, the right has set the stage. They have defined all aspects the way they want them defined. The rational portion of the country just accepts those terms as a starting point. That gives the ideologues a guarantee of getting much of what they want. Various forums also accept those terms. There may be a forum here or there but one is likely to have to depend on searching out individuals who begin by rejecting the commonly accepted truisms and start their analysis from scratch, and with some pertinent background in the subject matter. Then, you, yes you, have to… Read more »