The New Medicare Proposal

[Guest]

I think the new proposal for medicare seems very fair. Opt in or out. Find a better deal you get the difference.

[Guest]

I would think it would be difficult to beat the Medicare coverage....however I really do not know that. Just from experience since my wife and I have been on it and what has been taken care of 100%.

Medicare Rx coverage is a joke. Save your money. One can do much better without it.

btk

[Guest]

If history is any indicator, our Senate will sit on it and let it die !

[Guest]

If someone can find a private insurer who will insure the elderly for a decent price (ANY price in some cases) and have the kinds of benefits Medicare gives and STILL do the bidding of the owners (maximize profits for shareholders), then you'll have something special indeed.

[Guest]

I think the new proposal for medicare seems very fair. Opt in or out. Find a better deal you get the difference.

Not sure what the new proposal is but some companies force you to take Medicare as the primary coverage and their coveage as the secondary coverage.

I would need to hear more about the new propasal before I can commit to anything.

[Guest]

The below is fairly descriptive of the plan.......BUT remember, as I understand it, it does not affect those who are in retirement and will have an effective begin date in the future....I offer two quotes from the Bloomberg article..

"Ryan improved his plan in December when he teamed up with Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (proving that even a liberal Democrat can appreciate premium support). Their plan would have offered seniors a subsidy to buy private health insurance, only this time they could choose the traditional Medicare program. Still, benefits would be capped. But Ryan and Wyden would have allowed more generous increases in per-capita Medicare spending of 1 percent above the rate of gross domestic product growth, or about 4 percent if the plan were in place this year.
The 2013 budget that Ryan unveiled Tuesday picks up some important features, including the Medicare option, from the Ryan-Wyden plan. It would create a competitive-bidding process to determine the annual increase in the government voucher, forcing health plans and the Medicare program to compete for patients. The federal subsidy would be based on the second- least-expensive plan in each market. Ryan would means-test Medicare by subsidizing the poor more and the wealthy less. And beginning in 2023, he would increase gradually the Medicare eligibility age until it reaches 67 in 2034.

"Democrats are already hammering Ryan for ending Medicare as we know it. But the CBO estimates that the present system will run out of money in the next nine years. Ryan’s plan may be poor politics, but it’s the right policy."

Paul Ryan (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-20/paul-ryan-s-medicare-voucher-plan-improves-with-each-pass.html)


The last sentence is, in my opinion, perhaps a knee jerk reaction and maybe one of those things they have to say at this point, because I understand from some other reading that the plan is getting some bi partisan approval, at least in private and in words.

The biggest issue to me is that it actually may decrease HEALTH COSTS which has always been the thing that had to be done.

[Guest]

djplong is right. After years of struggling with a secondary coverage insurance company, we cut the cord with the employer-sponsored plan and went with a Medicare supplement. Here's how it used to go with the secondary company: "Your provider is out of network, so the deductible in $0,000. Dr. So and So is not in our network, so the copay is $000."

We went with a Medigap policy. Am not sure yet that it saves money over self-insurance but at least you know what they're going to pay. The particulars are covered by law, not what the insurance company does per their contract with the employer.

[Guest]

Here's what gets me about private insurers and why my opinions changed of them over the years.

As many know, I used to work for Boston's Beth Israel Hospital (now Beth Israel Deaconess). We were getting squeezed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I remember, in particular, one meeting where the discussion was our 'gain sharing' plan (like profit-sharing, but for non-profits).

At this time, health insurance premiums were skyrocketing. Yet those same insurance companies were CUTTING what they were paying the hospital. As an example, one company had a contract that they would pay $1600/night for an inpatient. This was considered a bare-bones price. But, now that the contract was up for renewal, they were offerring $1200/night. You can imagine our reaction. The insurance company basically said "Take the offer or we remove your hospital from our list of approved (in-network) hospitals".

Think about that. I mean, never mind the fact that no matter WHAT was done to a patient - the number of procedures, attending physicians, nursing staff - you were billed BY THE NIGHT. Whether you were constantly being revived by a trauma team or slept peacefully through the night - didn't matter.

The hospital was making less money. The patients were being billed MORE money. Where was it going? Well, as the saying goes - follow the money. Shareholders. The owners of the corporation.

Capitalism collides with health-care and we don't have a system in place that really works.

[Guest]

Here's what gets me about private insurers and why my opinions changed of them over the years.

As many know, I used to work for Boston's Beth Israel Hospital (now Beth Israel Deaconess). We were getting squeezed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I remember, in particular, one meeting where the discussion was our 'gain sharing' plan (like profit-sharing, but for non-profits).

At this time, health insurance premiums were skyrocketing. Yet those same insurance companies were CUTTING what they were paying the hospital. As an example, one company had a contract that they would pay $1600/night for an inpatient. This was considered a bare-bones price. But, now that the contract was up for renewal, they were offerring $1200/night. You can imagine our reaction. The insurance company basically said "Take the offer or we remove your hospital from our list of approved (in-network) hospitals".

Think about that. I mean, never mind the fact that no matter WHAT was done to a patient - the number of procedures, attending physicians, nursing staff - you were billed BY THE NIGHT. Whether you were constantly being revived by a trauma team or slept peacefully through the night - didn't matter.

The hospital was making less money. The patients were being billed MORE money. Where was it going? Well, as the saying goes - follow the money. Shareholders. The owners of the corporation.

Capitalism collides with health-care and we don't have a system in place that really works.

Does all of this mean you do not think that Paul Ryan's proposal has a chance to lower costs ?

[Guest]

Not sure what the new proposal is but some companies force you to take Medicare as the primary coverage and their coveage as the secondary coverage.

I would need to hear more about the new propasal before I can commit to anything.

Medicare is the primary payer for retired people who have the mandatory A. It is Federal law. So, if you still have your employers coverage and are over 65 and working, you have to convince new providers that you do not have Medicare.

Many employers would have continued Health Insurance for employees if no Medicare. Similar happened with "Medicare D", they dropped their retirees prescription plan.

Under Obamacare, many employers may opt to pay the fine and drop their employees health insurance, it wouldbe cheaper. Next stop, pure socialized medicine with rationing. OMG