What would be the difference to families of those on Medicare?

[LiberalFighter]

If Medicare is killed or severely changed how would it effect the whole family? Not just the individual that directly receives the benefit?

This needs to be explained more as to the effect especially financially. I believe that Medicare currently pays 80% of authorized costs and the individual pays the other 20% and no more than that. The hospital or doctor cannot make the patient pay the amount over the authorized amount.

What happens when Medicare is killed? Will there be an agency that must determine costs as now? Or will doctors and hospitals be able to charge as much as they want and demand total payment?

How will this effect people that are under 55 with insurance? Will insurance companies charge more for premiums because the coverage will be for everything when they are Social Security eligible and retired if they are even able to get insurance. Most will not be likely to continue employer insurance when they retire.

How much of a financial burden are elderly on families currently? And how much more will this be with Medicare killed? I believe that currently families of elderly are very lucky in this situation.


In summary, Ryan says that his plan will only effect those over 55. But it will probably have a indirect cost to many that are under 55 because they have parents over 55 requiring health care.

[Raven]

1. See my recent post here. n/t

[shraby]

2. No matter how carefully the elderly had planned their

retirement..house payed for, etc., one possibly two illnesses such as heart attack, stroke or cancer would totally wipe them out financially because the chits the government would give them under the Ryan plan wouldn't buy much insurance if they could buy it at all. That would leave the bulk of hospital bills to the elderly to pay out of pocket.

We then have homeless old people who are dependent on their children and that is what Medicare was designed to prevent. The aim was to keep the elderly independent as long as possible.

Then there is the matter of Medicaid..which is also on the republican chopping block. Those elderly who become destitute because of the hospital bills cited above, would then be eligible for Medicaid if it's still around. Medicaid pays for the Homes for old people now. If that's gone, they only have two options..depend on their children or land on the street. Nice country the republicans envision.

There is one aspect of doing away with Medicare and moving to vouchers I've not seen addressed. As one ages, the memory and ability to concentrate diminishes..more in some less in others. To force the elderly to have to figure out which insurance company would give the the best bang for the buck will be very hard for them..they will either have to hire someone to figure it out or trust to luck. I'm sure the insurance companies will make it easier to choose. I know I don't want to deal with figuring it out myself when faced with choosing a Part D provider. I've had enough of those kinds of decisions when I was much younger and don't want to deal with them anymore..I just want to enjoy my retirement and not be faced with life altering decisions.

[rfranklin]

3. Do the Republicans envision the results or are they only counting their money?

I don't think they can envision what will happen to "others" because they lack empathy. They cannot envision themselve ever being in need of assistance. I really think it comes as a complete shock when their hospital bill bankrupts them.

[shimmergal]

4. The result would be NO inheritance left in

middle class families.

Senior citizens who now have a modest house, and/or a small amount of savings or investments usually plan to leave it to their children. Even so, inordinate medical bills in the last years of life may bankrupt them, but if they're lucky, that doesn't happen.

With a $6000 medicare "vouchers", this properety would be on the block every time they go to the doctor. I can't help but think this is deliberate.