Congress Looking at Limiting Medigap Options

[GreenSky]

By moving the entry age to 70, you will take a large population out of the medicare system and make the system more sustainable. As the total pool of eligible patients are not in the system as long.... This will be easier for seniors to swallow and increase the eventual desired result.... A single payor system.

Skipper

Completely disagree. By moving it to 70 you eliminate healthier people from the system and raise the average (and sicker) age. Why would you want to remove a large population on generally healthy people? Kicking people out when they reach 70 would actually make the system more sustainable.

The goal of the libtards is indeed single payer because that will create more government control and of course less quality.

Rick

 

[TwiLight]

Completely disagree. By moving it to 70 you eliminate healthier people from the system and raise the average (and sicker) age. Why would you want to remove a large population on generally healthy people? Kicking people out when they reach 70 would actually make the system more sustainable.

The goal of the libtards is indeed single payer because that will create more government control and of course less quality.

Rick

You have to look at the numbers....Your assumption of the Healthier 65-69 people is predicated on that they pay into medicare at a high tax rate and they are not.... So it does not matter if they are moved as you are claiming.... In reality you are eliminating cost which lowers the overall cost of the system for age 70+.

Now if they were still making $100k/yr and paying into the system at the 2.9% tax rate I would agree with you, unfortunately they are not.... Most are retired living on SS only and should be gradually eliminated as the retirement age is currently with Social Security.... My age group is at age 67 for retirement and my kids are age 70....

We are already moving the ages up to save that system.... Eliminating the cost from 65-69 and transferring it the the Bulk of the population will slightly increase their cost but the savings to medicare with an entry age at 70 will save hundreds of billions today and trillions over the next 10 years.

 

[GreenSky]

You have to look at the numbers....Your assumption of the Healthier 65-69 people is predicated on that they pay into medicare at a high tax rate and they are not.... So it does not matter if they are moved as you are claiming.... In reality you are eliminating cost which lowers the overall cost of the system for age 70+.

Has nothing to do with what comes into the system. I'm only talking out the annual cost of care. It has to be greater for older people than for younger people. So taking younger people out has to increase the average cost per person insured.

Rick

 

[TwiLight]

Has nothing to do with what comes into the system. I'm only talking out the annual cost of care. It has to be greater for older people than for younger people. So taking younger people out has to increase the average cost per person insured.

Rick

You also have to take into account time of care.... Adding / subtracting 5 years to the time of care reduces cost as there is a time limit on how long we live.

The Tax rate was 2.6% in 1984, 2.7% in 1985 and changed to the current rate of 2.9% in 1986.

Now I ask you, has the cost of care and life expectancy changed in the past 29 years. Most certainly.... ObamaCare has already proposed that Medicare be increased 50% to save the current system.... What is needed is sound actuarial practices and a cost shift to the bulk of the payers... 18-69.... and eliminating the cost.

Your premise is only logical if the 65-69 age group pays into the system at a high tax rate and they do not....

Cost per individual goes up only slightly higher as the death rate also increases for those left to be covered over the age of 70... Thus lowering the total pool of claims and costs per individual.

 

[GreenSky]

You also have to take into account time of care.... Adding / subtracting 5 years to the time of care reduces cost as there is a time limit on how long we live.

The Tax rate was 2.6% in 1984, 2.7% in 1985 and changed to the current rate of 2.9% in 1986.

Now I ask you, has the cost of care and life expectancy changed in the past 29 years. Most certainly.... ObamaCare has already proposed that Medicare be increased 50% to save the current system.... What is needed is sound actuarial practices and a cost shift to the bulk of the payers... 18-69.... and eliminating the cost.

Your premise is only logical if the 65-69 age group pays into the system at a high tax rate and they do not....

Cost per individual goes up only slightly higher as the death rate also increases for those left to be covered over the age of 70... Thus lowering the total pool of claims and costs per individual.

Ok, I accept your apology.

Rick

 

[somarco]

raise the entry age to 70 or go to a single payer system where all are taxed equally.....

I presume you have not priced Obamcrap insurance for someone age 64 lately. I have several clients age 63 - 64 that are going without coverage until they turn 65 because they can't afford the premiums.

Single payer is working so well in the Socialist countries, why not import it here?

As for the taxing everyone equally, the HI tax rate (1.45 for employees, 2.90 for self employed) is the same for everyone. If you earn over $200k ($250k married) you pay an additional .9% on income xs of those thresholds.

You might want to ask the Professor for help in following this.

 

[TwiLight]

As for the taxing everyone equally, the HI tax rate (1.45 for employees, 2.90 for self employed) is the same for everyone. If you earn over $200k ($250k married) you pay an additional .9% on income xs of those thresholds.

That would be great if everyone over 65 earned that amount... as it is 80% of age 65+ make under $30k and 14% make $30k-50k over age 65. The 5.6% making $100k-$200k age 65+ Leaving a huge tax pull from the 0.4% of those making $200k+ at ages 65+. Numbers are from Social Security Admin 2010.

Equal share means nothing at retirement age... it is a cost shift to younger ages to pay for the medicare system period... Either the younger ages get taxed at the proposed new Obamacare recommendation of 4.3% (EE/ER rate) or shift costs to the younger by eliminating the Claims pool of those 65-69 and eventually 70-74, to the younger ages which in turns increases the Obama Care Costs.

Either Way.... the younger Ages are screwed....

 

[somarco]

Wage earners, regardless of age, pay FICA and HI taxes. The Professor can explain it to you.

This equal share talk sounds too much like speeches by the Arrogant One. Are you a follower?

 

[midwestbroker]

Kaiser Family Foundation released a report called The Rising Cost of Living Longer.

In 2011, the average Medicare per capita spending among all Medicare beneficiaries over 65 was $9,893. If you looked at all the ages, it gradually climbed to age 96 where it peaked at $16,145 then slowly started to decline again.

If you are an insurance geek (such as myself), you can read the report here:

https://app.box.com/files/0/f/1636673556/1/f_25305602647

Medicare, to help offset some of these medical costs, implementing more pay-per-performance standards. I can guess if that does not work to offset some of the costs, they will look harder at Medicare coverage options.

 

[somarco]

Medicare, to help offset some of these medical costs, implementing more pay-per-performance standards. I can guess if that does not work to offset some of the costs, they will look harder at Medicare coverage options.

Medicare can be "fixed" in one of two ways.
- More funding (increase taxes)
- Cost shifting

Any proposal that shifts more of the financial burden to retirees will be met with a lot of pushback.

Medicare reimbursement to providers is already so low that many doctors limit the number of patients they see and some opt out of Medicare completely. Rural hospitals are closing on a regular basis when they serve areas where the population is primarily Medicare and Medicaid.

"Pay for performance" will further limit access to health care.

Personally, I don't understand why the govt feels it is OK to tax employees and employers their entire working life and then effectively tax them again on the back end. Apparently the people in DC are mostly brain dead.

Can't access your app box link.