Medicare buy in

[ProSense]

For those people claiming that insurance at $50 to $80 per month is unaffordable, how would a person afford to buy into Medicare and afford its coinsurance?

[DesertFlower]

1. they can't. nt

[Maru Kitteh]

2. THANK YOU!

[coti]

3. There's a difference between paying $50 to $80 a month for catastrophic non-insurance

and paying for a usable, reliable, less expensive insurance policy.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

7. Even at the lower levels of young people, it would still be a significant cost. n/t

[NYC_SKP]

10. Can't argue with facts? Then attack the messenger.

Paid to post here? :eyes:

What a screwy suggestion.

What a disingenuous and weak response to a DU member who provides links to factual actual information, valid information.

Can you provide a link that disputes the proposition that Medicare has specific costs, has a study been done that includes projected costs of buying into Medicare?

That would be useful in a discussion.

Maybe it's been done, maybe there are some good points to make.

:shrug:

[kenny blankenship]

12. I just GAVE the most salient fact - Medicare's "customer" base is composed exclusively of old people

people who are UNINSURABLE in general because they are guaranteed high loss customers to insurance companies. That's WHY Medicare came into being in the first place. Medicare costs because it pays and pays and pays on people in the last years of their lives. Implying that Medicare or Medicare like programs can't do the job of basic insurance for the young and healthy because ZOMG LOOK AT MEDICARE'S COSTS!! is the fucking height of disingenuous jackassery.

[coti]

14. But it's not about facts or what's good (or even WORKS) anymore. It's about political "wins" and

moneyed interests and coercion. Whatever their gig is, that's what the arguments of ProSense and everyone else who support this bill represent.

It's certainly not progress, or worthwhile.

[Maru Kitteh]

18. It must be so fuckin' awesome to know everything about everybody.

I was like that right after I got my first drivers license.

Millions of individuals and families are fervently hoping for this bill to pass because they NEED it - and whether or not you have any clue about it - they DO know what is best for themselves and their families.

[coti]

19. Last I checked, it was YOUR side forcing private insurance on others, not mine.

With this bill, you're making rather large, expensive choices about what's best for others.

The thing is, though, when you make choices about what's best for everyone, it really helps to be right.

[Cleobulus]

5. In other words we are fucked either way. n/t

[coti]

6. People should at least be given a choice (or left with the choice they already have), it seems to me

I think that's the point, here.

[pnwmom]

8. I agree. I'd rather send the same money in to a plan I could trust.

And that wasn't set up to make a profit off my illness.

[Cleobulus]

9. A lot of us won't have a choice except for whatever sucky ass plan our employer offers. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

11. Medicare's Premiums are based on covering a 65 and older population.

Allow a buy in and those premiums will drop, open Medicare for every American from the cradle to the grave and those premiums will drop dramatically.

If taxes on the mega-wealthy need to be raised to anywhere near 60s or 70s levels to subsidize those with less, so be it.

I don't understand the logic behind anyone that believes a private for profit health insurance industry could possibly cover the American People for less than a government non-profit one.

Every dollar made in profit is a loss to the health care system and the American People as a whole, putting upward pressure on medical costs and the enabling of abusive payouts to some favored hospitals over others, along with bribery/lobbying money directed at political leaders.

P.S. It isn't just the private "health" insurance profits driving up medical costs, it's the reams of redundant bureaucracies and billing taking up hospitals and doctors time, energy and resources.

The for profit system is dysfunctional and is working at odds against the peoples' best interests.

[ProSense]

13. Who can afford to buy in? Medicare

would need to be restructered to serve the needs of the under 65 market. The coinsurance is high and the prescription cost can be enormous.

You say it would go down on what pace, on what time line. Who would be able to buy in right away, specifically among the uninsured?

[Uncle Joe]

15. Yes Medicare would need to be restructured and as I mentioned

if taxes need to be raised on the mega wealthy to subsidize those without and during a transition period, so be it.

As to the pace and time regarding how fast Medicare; will drop would be directly related to how quickly, and to the extent it's opened to the American People.

But logic dictates it would be superior to any profit based system for the nation as a whole; aka, "general welfare."

[slipslidingaway]

16. That is a reason for an improved Medicare for All plan. nt

[mdmc]

17. 1

[ProSense]

20. Where is that plan?

The question was about Medicare buy in, which people seem to think solves the affordability problem.

Where is the plan? What do the premiums look like? Will they be less than $50 per month for those who cannot afford that amount?

[slipslidingaway]

23. Check the PNHP site, I posted this link a few times the other day...

;)

Grayson’s “Public Option Act” or “Medicare You Can Buy Into Act”

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/slipslidingaway/318

Comment by Don McCanne MD

"Throughout the reform process members of Congress have been fighting over whether or not the reform legislation should include the option of purchasing a government-sponsored plan through the proposed insurance exchanges – the so-called “public option.” Since Congressman Alan Grayson introduced the “Public Option Act” or “Medicare You Can Buy Into Act” three days ago, a wave of enthusiastic support has been generated based on the perception that this is the perfect solution. Today’s comment briefly discusses this legislation, and it will sound really great at first blush, but do not draw any firm conclusions until you read through to the end.

...Many are not aware of this, but Medicare already has a buy-in program...

At any rate, the Grayson proposal seems to be the true public option, run by the government, that progressives have been fighting for. So what could be wrong with it?

The greatest concern of all is that it still does not fix our outrageously expensive, administratively wasteful, highly inequitable, fragmented method of financing health care. It merely provides another expensive option in our very sick system of paying for health care. Providing yet one more option that people can’t afford really hasn’t moved the process.

...For those who say that a Medicare buy-in is an incremental step towards health care utopia, explain precisely how that is going to work. Explain each problem that it solves. Explain how it is going to morph into a universal or near universal system in which each individual is paying the full actuarial value of the coverage. It won’t happen.

Playing with a Medicare buy-in is an unnecessary diversion at a time that we need to get serious about reform. We need to fix Medicare and expand it to cover everyone. Nothing less will do."

[rucky]

21. You think it's a bad idea?

pass Grayson's bill with the current bill, and more people will get better and more affordable care. Those who don't qualify for subsidies can buy into Medicare.

[ProSense]

22. No. "pass Grayson's bill with the current bill"

There is a reason that Congressman Grayson has remained a supporter of the current health bill

Medicare buy in on its own does not solve the affordability problem.