[OCsun]

Originally Posted by mixsonci

This may sound like a strange question, but what exactly is AARP? I will be 65 in a year's time and will retire. I work for the US Government and will keep their health insurance plus possibly I will also get Medicare, do I still need/want AARP? Do you use them for anything else? How much do they cost? Thank you.

AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that helps people 50 and older improve the quality of their lives. They have allowed UnitedHealthcare to attach their name to one of their health care plans, in exchange for a royalty fee.

The plan referred to within this thread, is a Medicare Supplemental Plan, insured through UnitedHealthcare. No, you do not need this plan if you are currently covered by a Federal Employee Health Care Plan (FEHP). The same holds true for many people who have health care benefits through a large employer plan.

Some of the plans offered as part of the FEHP, do not require you to enroll in Medicare Part B. The advantage to applying for Medicare in addition to paying the premium for your current FEHP, is the combination of both plans will cover most if not all of your medical care bills.

It is very important to review how your current health care benefits work with and without Medicare, once you become eligible for Medicare. I hope this helps to answer your question.

[jebartle]

Villages Kahuna you have a way of clearing the "muddy water"....Thank you

[mulligan]

AARP may be non profit, but if you dig deeply, you will find that they are owned by Hartford Insurance Group.

[Parker]

I happen to have just called The Villages Health clinic today. The told me they take all major insurance companies except Aetna, and they take many smaller ones. Got it from the horse's mouth.

[2BNTV]

AARP is American Association for Retired People.

[NotGolfer]

In chatting with folks here and there, I've heard that other physicians are dropping certain insurances---so it's not just insurance companies dropping physicians. So folks still have to scramble to find the package that will work for them. I think that advantage plans such as we experienced with Preferred Care Partners are now a thing of the past. Yes, there is Freedom...but they have a limited list of doctors in their network. Healthcare in this country is changing, in case you're reading or listening to the news these days. Wait until 2014, I think we all will be shaking our heads and wishing for the "good old days:!!

[blueash]

Medicare managed care programs are paid a fixed amount by the Federal Government per month per enrollee and the insurance company then assumes the risk that the enrollee cost them more than their reimbursement. Obviously if you are an insurance company you would love to get the payment from the government based on the usual cost of a Medicare enrollee and figure out a way to only enroll healthy seniors. The 2012 rate was about $825 per month per enrollee. Thus if you cost the insurance company less than $825/mo they make money. Now your cost is not just the amount they pay the doctors and others but also their overhead and of course their profit.

So find your company a bunch of healthy seniors and put them into a network that is an HMO so they have little or no out of network benefits. Try to keep them healthy as it lowers your overall cost. Bingo big profits. Well, here in America's healthiest hometown we have a self selected population of seniors who are active. If you are chronically ill at retirement age you didn't likely move here. If you live here and develop a severe expensive illness it is even likely you may move away, back home to be nearer family and perhaps where you have a higher intensity hospital and specialty services available and you will change to a different Medicare plan as this one won't cover you there.

Thus you also have removed those expensive sick people from your enrollee panel as they leave the area. Wow, even more profits. Brilliant. Get the payment for a usual panel of Medicare patients and only have to provide services to a panel that is much healthier than average. I applaud UHC and whomever their partners in this venture might be for a clever plan. Then of course don't forget to advertise it like crazy to the potential enrollee. In no way do I want anyone to take from this any opinion of the quality of care that may be provided. They are still hiring doctors, and NP's, and PA's. I would encourage looking for the most highly trained providers all other factors being equal. Someone with a geriatrics fellowship would be great for a senior patient. An internist has much more residency training in adult medicine than a family physician. Look for board certification and while I suggest looking at online reviews, take those with a ton of salt.

[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by blueash

Medicare managed care programs are paid a fixed amount by the Federal Government per month per enrollee and the insurance company then assumes the risk that the enrollee cost them more than their reimbursement. Obviously if you are an insurance company you would love to get the payment from the government based on the usual cost of a Medicare enrollee and figure out a way to only enroll healthy seniors. The 2012 rate was about $825 per month per enrollee. Thus if you cost the insurance company less than $825/mo they make money. Now your cost is not just the amount they pay the doctors and others but also their overhead and of course their profit.

So find your company a bunch of healthy seniors and put them into a network that is an HMO so they have little or no out of network benefits. Try to keep them healthy as it lowers your overall cost. Bingo big profits. Well, here in America's healthiest hometown we have a self selected population of seniors who are active. If you are chronically ill at retirement age you didn't likely move here. If you live here and develop a severe expensive illness it is even likely you may move away, back home to be nearer family and perhaps where you have a higher intensity hospital and specialty services available and you will change to a different Medicare plan as this one won't cover you there.

Thus you also have removed those expensive sick people from your enrollee panel as they leave the area. Wow, even more profits. Brilliant. Get the payment for a usual panel of Medicare patients and only have to provide services to a panel that is much healthier than average. I applaud UHC and whomever their partners in this venture might be for a clever plan. Then of course don't forget to advertise it like crazy to the potential enrollee. In no way do I want anyone to take from this any opinion of the quality of care that may be provided. They are still hiring doctors, and NP's, and PA's. I would encourage looking for the most highly trained providers all other factors being equal. Someone with a geriatrics fellowship would be great for a senior patient. An internist has much more residency training in adult medicine than a family physician. Look for board certification and while I suggest looking at online reviews, take those with a ton of salt.

Thank you for these helpful insights.

Regarding this, "So find your company a bunch of healthy seniors and put them into a network that is an HMO so they have little or no out of network benefits. Try to keep them healthy as it lowers your overall cost...Thus you also have removed those expensive sick people from your enrollee panel as they leave the area. Wow, even more profits. Brilliant......"

Why are so many people here content with the government giving so much more business like this to the giant insurers that nobody likes (both patients and doctors are sick of them)? The insurers' control over patient care, and shrinking treatment, is increasing instead of decreasing, and it seems like many seniors are looking only at the low premiums they pay (for now).

I don't think people buy a new car based on low price only, so why do that in buying health coverage? Is it really worth it to save $100-$200 per month in premiums, only to find out when you get a dire illness or disease that the above listed limitations are in play?

[blueash]

Originally Posted by ilovetv

Thank you for these helpful insights.

Regarding this, "So find your company a bunch of healthy seniors and put them into a network that is an HMO so they have little or no out of network benefits. Try to keep them healthy as it lowers your overall cost...Thus you also have removed those expensive sick people from your enrollee panel as they leave the area. Wow, even more profits. Brilliant......"

Why are so many people here content with the government giving so much more business like this to the giant insurers that nobody likes (both patients and doctors are sick of them)? The insurers' control over patient care, and shrinking treatment, is increasing instead of decreasing, and it seems like many seniors are looking only at the low premiums they pay (for now).

I don't think people buy a new car based on low price only, so why do that in buying health coverage? Is it really worth it to save $100-$200 per month in premiums, only to find out when you get a dire illness or disease that the above listed limitations are in play?

Opinion, not facts but here goes. I think a large segment of Americans believe that the free enterprise system, businesses, can do a better job with whatever task is required than can the government. Certainly those businesses have been quite generous with their campaign donations to candidates who hold that belief. So when health care legislation was being written, the authors determined that private insurance companies would be the only player in the market. Recall that during the discussion of the outline of the ACA there were proposals for the additional option of Medicare for all or what was called the Public option. However this was not included in the law. The two largest factors, again my opinion, were that the Medicare for all option had no lobbyists, and the real risk of a repeat of the Harry and Louise commercials that killed the Clinton proposal in the 1990's.

So this is where we are. Private insurers are poised to profit from the implementation of the ACA. And seniors who obviously have government provided insurance (Medicare) are being offered alternative coverage from private carriers with promises of a better product. Time will tell. It may be a better product for you the patient, or a better product for the stockholders of UHC (and their business partners in this venture) or for both or neither.

[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by blueash

Opinion, not facts but here goes. I think a large segment of Americans believe that the free enterprise system, businesses, can do a better job with whatever task is required than can the government. Certainly those businesses have been quite generous with their campaign donations to candidates who hold that belief. So when health care legislation was being written, the authors determined that private insurance companies would be the only player in the market. Recall that during the discussion of the outline of the ACA there were proposals for the additional option of Medicare for all or what was called the Public option. However this was not included in the law. The two largest factors, again my opinion, were that the Medicare for all option had no lobbyists, and the real risk of a repeat of the Harry and Louise commercials that killed the Clinton proposal in the 1990's.

So this is where we are. Private insurers are poised to profit from the implementation of the ACA. And seniors who obviously have government provided insurance (Medicare) are being offered alternative coverage from private carriers with promises of a better product. Time will tell. It may be a better product for you the patient, or a better product for the stockholders of UHC (and their business partners in this venture) or for both or neither.

I think you're right. Even more onerous is that in reading United Healthcare's report to stockholders linked here, they report on having and growing a huge portion of military TRICARE business, too!

Here's just one portion of this huge report:

UnitedHealthcare's momentum continues as the fastest growing health benefits company in the market. It increased the number of people served by 24%, nearly 9 million individuals over the past year. This includes more than 2.9 million people in TRICARE and another 4.8 million people in Brazil, both new markets for us......

UnitedHealthcare Military & Veterans membership in TRICARE was well-served, with its transitional issues now well in hand. UnitedHealthcare International has added almost 400,000 people so far this year, with particular strength in the large group market.

Our UnitedHealthcare International medical assistance and clinics business continues to grow and advance, recently receiving new contracts to serve the global oil and gas industry in the Middle East, Africa and now in the North Atlantic.

Optum's technology-enabled services again grew strongly, in a market sized at over $500 billion. Our growth potential is particularly compelling as we continue to develop broader, more integrated, long-term relationships with larger clients who are pursuing new approaches to the market.

Earlier this week we announced the formation of the Optum360 business with our partner, Dignity Health. Working collaboratively and applying advanced Optum technologies, we expect to improve revenue cycle performance end-to-end, from the perspectives of both patients and care providers, across Dignity's 39 hospitals and 300 care centers in 21 states....."

UnitedHealth Group Inc UNH Q3 2013 Earnings Call Transcript

[rpensabene]

Originally Posted by ilovetv

Why is AARP not advocating for you and other patients who pay them dues?

The doctors have a right to appeal that decision.

[shcisamax]

I wonder if we eventually will be a one provider healthcare nation.

[dotti105]

Looking at the other 1st world (industrialized) nations, there are several single payer systems that work VERY well and the residents of those nations LOVE their healthcare. Also their morbidity and mortality rates rank far better than ours.

Our health care system has been broken for years. Health care available only to the highest and lowest income groups, with middle income families squeezed out.

I am a RN and had hoped our country would have agreed to go to a single payer system. In my humble opinion, we have screwed up royally by letting the insurance companies have control. They are greedy and corrupt and will do anything to deny a claim.

But our political system works in the pockets of those elected. Lobbyists, pay our elected representatives to have THEIR own interests at the core of the party platforms.

I am appalled that Rick Scott, the HCA Officer legally responsible for the largest Medicare fraud in history (over 8 Billion; With a "B") was elected governor.

Yes Obama Care is flawed. But that is because the people who represent us were paid to accept universal coverage only if the insurance companies get the largest portion of the pie.

I expect we have a rough road ahead in Health care, as we did not follow the templates of the successful nation's healthcare plans and chose instead to allow the insurance companies to line their pockets at our expense.

In our political world, that has become the American way. Very sad indeed.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by dotti105

Looking at the other 1st world (industrialized) nations, there are several single payer systems that work VERY well and the residents of those nations LOVE their healthcare. Also their morbidity and mortality rates rank far better than ours...

With all due respect, I have serious doubts about this claim.

[Biker Dog]

Originally Posted by dotti105

Looking at the other 1st world (industrialized) nations, there are several single payer systems that work VERY well and the residents of those nations LOVE their healthcare. Also their morbidity and mortality rates rank far better than ours.

Our health care system has been broken for years. Health care available only to the highest and lowest income groups, with middle income families squeezed out.

I am a RN and had hoped our country would have agreed to go to a single payer system. In my humble opinion, we have screwed up royally by letting the insurance companies have control. They are greedy and corrupt and will do anything to deny a claim.

But our political system works in the pockets of those elected. Lobbyists, pay our elected representatives to have THEIR own interests at the core of the party platforms.

I am appalled that Rick Scott, the HCA Officer legally responsible for the largest Medicare fraud in history (over 8 Billion; With a "B") was elected governor.

Yes Obama Care is flawed. But that is because the people who represent us were paid to accept universal coverage only if the insurance companies get the largest portion of the pie.

I expect we have a rough road ahead in Health care, as we did not follow the templates of the successful nation's healthcare plans and chose instead to allow the insurance companies to line their pockets at our expense.

In our political world, that has become the American way. Very sad indeed.

Single payer system will help to lower our population due to early deaths from lack of doctors. What person would take the time and expense to become a doctor when the government would control their income and dictate their work schedule.