Medicare at 50 Act reintroduced

[Lemon Drop]

$tevie wrote:
[quote=Lemon Drop]
[quote=$tevie]
I am on Medicare. You have to pay for everything except basic Medicare, and on top of that you have to pay for supplemental insurance because Medicare doesn't cover half of what you would want/need covered. So joy, rapture, now people as young as 50 can learn that Medicare ain't nearly the wunnerful thing that people who aren't on it imagine that it is.
PS: guess who sells the supplemental insurance? Private insurance companies, that's who. Guess they ain't going anywhere any time soon.

Yes you need private supplemental insurance, but at least in my Moms case it is still by far the best arrangement out there for covering health costs. She pays $300 a month for a supplemental plan and has very low out of pocket cost for meds, and had no out of pocket for 3 days in the hospital and a week in a private rehab after a fall. No surgery or broken bones thank goodness.

The hospital billed insurance something like $40k for that, she owed nothing.

We average one specialist visit or screening a month, no out of pocket.

I would love to have that myself. It does little for people who don't have $300 a month for supplemental. Qualifying for dual Medicare/Medicaid requires one to be staggeringly poor, so there's that same old gap that the not-poor-enough always fall into.
But honestly, my main objection is that people think this is a first step to single-payer when in fact it's the first step to creating a situation where private insurance companies will be gouging the hell out of seniors to make up for losing their customers in the employment sector.
I would love to see universal, single payer care. Canada's system seems to be holding up. The UK's conservatives are doing their best to ruin the NHS.
Just looking at the options we have now, Medicare plus a supplemental private plan is the best thing going and would be an improvement for me anyway.

[Robert M]

Sarcany,

You're basing your perspective from an experience that is due to an existing system which itself is a flawed clusterfrack. The system needs to be revamped entirely to prevent those problems before allowing insurers provide for anyone in any state. Until that is done - which I deem never in my lifetime - the idea of medicare plus a single/couple/parent with child/family supplement of some kind is the best current solution.

Robert

[kj]

$tevie wrote:
I am on Medicare. You have to pay for everything except basic Medicare, and on top of that you have to pay for supplemental insurance because Medicare doesn't cover half of what you would want/need covered. So joy, rapture, now people as young as 50 can learn that Medicare ain't nearly the wunnerful thing that people who aren't on it imagine that it is.
PS: guess who sells the supplemental insurance? Private insurance companies, that's who. Guess they ain't going anywhere any time soon.

I've been wondering about that now that I know more people on Medicare. It seems like it's turned in to an incredible racket. Trying to get someone's meds covered (finding a plan that covers all of them, or as many as possible. And then they change what they cover). 20 calls a day trying to get you to switch to a different supplemental plan, etc. Very aggressive and deceptive tactics.

Admittedly, I don't understand it, and I probably won't find out really how much I don't know until I get there. Not really looking forward to it.

[Robert M]

$tevie,

What you’re describing is still a vast improvement over not having any health coverage at all. That’s what my wife, daughter and I are facing right now. It’s what all too many people already face each day. Complain all you want but it is still better than nothing at all.

Robert

[Janit]

It is important to distinguish between Medicare and retirement. They are separate things. I enrolled in Medicare at 65 but did not retire. Even so, I needed to have 40 "quarters" of social security credit to qualify for "free" part A. And there is a premium for part B, etc. I would expect "Medicare at 50" to have a different premium schedule, depending on age and work history. Medicare is not the free ride some people think it is. I am fortunate that my area has good "zero premium" Medicare Advantage plans available. This year they added PPO plans, in addition to the HMO plans, so the NJ providers must be feeling competitive pressure from seniors who do significant travel to other states.

[Lemon Drop]

Thanks Janit great points.

I read through the Senate bill. The idea is to get people 50 to 64 off the Obamacare exchanges. You qualify if you qualify for Medicare except for your age. And you pay a premium until you get to age 65. The premium payments would go into the Medicare trust fund. Subsidies would be available as they are under the ACA.

As I understand it this would be more cost effective for the government than what we're doing now.

I see that Sen. Sanders is not one of the Bill's sponsors, I assume he still wants Medicare for all?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-cong...format=txt

[Acer]

Clearly, any legislation has to ask this question: What's the worst possible way we can imagine private insurance companies--and the big vertical health care providers (the ones that have bought practices, labs, outpatient clinics and entire hospitals)--can manipulate what we propose? Not only prepare for that scenario, but remain flexible to respond to new, innovative ways to screw us they they find. A big problem with ACA and even with Medicare is that the Republicans may have failed to kill it, but they have been very effective in preventing efforts to fix issues that have become evident.

[Bill in NC]

Lemon Drop wrote:
Thanks Janit great points.

I read through the Senate bill. The idea is to get people 50 to 64 off the Obamacare exchanges. You qualify if you qualify for Medicare except for your age. And you pay a premium until you get to age 65. The premium payments would go into the Medicare trust fund. Subsidies would be available as they are under the ACA.

As I understand it this would be more cost effective for the government than what we're doing now.

I see that Sen. Sanders is not one of the Bill's sponsors, I assume he still wants Medicare for all?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-cong...format=txt

So what would be the actual monthly premium out of that gobbledygook?

As I said before, with most people already getting heavy subsidies under the ACA, simply sticking with an exchange plan would likely be cheaper than paying just the current Part B premium, not counting paying any Medigap or drug plan premiums.

[vision63]

Lemon Drop wrote:
Thanks Janit great points.

I read through the Senate bill. The idea is to get people 50 to 64 off the Obamacare exchanges. You qualify if you qualify for Medicare except for your age. And you pay a premium until you get to age 65. The premium payments would go into the Medicare trust fund. Subsidies would be available as they are under the ACA.

As I understand it this would be more cost effective for the government than what we're doing now.

I see that Sen. Sanders is not one of the Bill's sponsors, I assume he still wants Medicare for all?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-cong...format=txt

What he wants is not really Medicare for All but he's just rolling with that vernacular because it's popular. Nothing proposed in his Medicare for All Bill resembles the current Medicare program. He wants nothing less than single payer with no costs borne upon the general public. He's adamant about that. No private insurance could be sold that would duplicate government services. You are enrolled at birth.

It would be awesome if it could happen. H's trying to dunk the basketball but he can't get close enough to the hoop. Our country is simply too divided and manipulated to accomplish this. People that fought to win the healthcare they have now don't want to give it up.

This is a good rundown of his plan. I think it's important to fully understand it. Even his diehard followers don't understand it. That frustrates him.

Here’s what Bernie Sanders’ ‘Medicare for All’ proposal actually says
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/03/...annotated/

[Lemon Drop]

Bill in NC wrote:
[quote=Lemon Drop]
Thanks Janit great points.

I read through the Senate bill. The idea is to get people 50 to 64 off the Obamacare exchanges. You qualify if you qualify for Medicare except for your age. And you pay a premium until you get to age 65. The premium payments would go into the Medicare trust fund. Subsidies would be available as they are under the ACA.

As I understand it this would be more cost effective for the government than what we're doing now.

I see that Sen. Sanders is not one of the Bill's sponsors, I assume he still wants Medicare for all?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-cong...format=txt

So what would be the actual monthly premium out of that gobbledygook?

As I said before, with most people already getting heavy subsidies under the ACA, simply sticking with an exchange plan would likely be cheaper than paying just the current Part B premium, not counting paying any Medigap or drug plan premiums.
I don't know what the premiums would be, but the plan is open to all US citizens eligible for Medicare. The majority of people over 50 are not on the ACA exchanges and either can't get decent insurance at all or struggle to afford what they have.

Another benefit would be employers would maybe not avoid hiring people over 50 over worries of increasing the cost of their employee health pools.