Congress Looking at Limiting Medigap Options

[bobgio]

if they put a 7500 moop on plans and combine med shop deductible the idea is that's it---no supps since they've limited your exposure.

Limited, not eliminated. There are people that buy hospital indemnity plans who have MAPD to eliminate big bills. Those plans are mostly capped at $6700 per year. Original Medicare will never be a dollar one coverage and with a $7500 moop, the premiums on the Medsupp will be lower, but people will still buy them. It just won't be as lucrative as before. And with a lower premium, people will be more likely to buy. You can't make the argument that a $7500 moop will have people dropping Medigap altogether...
But in reality, with Medicare going bankrupt in the not too distant future, and the unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security in the $50 trillion to $100 trillion range, how could congress pay for a $7500 moop (from the current unlimited moop)? If anything, the deductibles will probably rise and per day in hospital and skilled nursing facility will probably rise and the Part B coinsurance will probably rise to 30% from the current 20%. Thus, Medigap will have to cover more and premiums will rise. That's why I think this whole exercise is a bunch a crap. I just don't see it happening. Congress is going to have to close that $50T to $100T liability somehow, and the best way is to shift more cost to the beneficiary....just reality. The Dems want to give away the farm to buy votes, but they'll just sink this country into a depression. The more unfunded liabilities, the higher the deficit, the more QE the Fed Reserve will have to do which will eventually sink the dollar and potentially collapse the economy. I can't see it happening. Fiscal restraint is coming. Look what happened to Greece...without fiscal restraint, we will be there soon...

 

[GreenSky]

The way to "save" Medicare is to lower the age to 50-55 to get healthier people into the program. I'm not advocating this, but it is the only logical answer.

Rick

 

[axeman462]

The way to "save" Medicare is to lower the age to 50-55 to get healthier people into the program. I'm not advocating this, but it is the only logical answer.

Rick

your sarcasm could kill an elephant

 

[GreenSky]

your sarcasm could kill an elephant

Correct, but that was not a sarcastic statement.

Some want to raise the age into Medicare which only means the younger (and we assume healthier) will be fewer and not offset the older and sicker. Allowing younger people into the pool will help the average cost.

If we can't eliminate this and other unconstitutional programs, then Medicare must be privatized using vouchers.

Rick

 

[sman]

The way to "save" Medicare is to lower the age to 50-55 to get healthier people into the program. I'm not advocating this, but it is the only logical answer.

Rick

Why stop there? How about Medicare for all? Then we'd have the healthy 40 and below group covered. (much sarcasm intended)

 

[GreenSky]

Why stop there? How about Medicare for all? Then we'd have the healthy 40 and below group covered. (much sarcasm intended)

Hey, thanks for outing me as a libtard. I was trying to keep that a secret.

I was only talking about saving Medicare, not something I want. I want to eliminate it.

Rick

 

[junkman]

The premium is subsidized by the Medicare payroll tax the beneficiary and employer have paid for their entire career. The $1260 Part A deductible per 60 day benefit period and Part B 20% coinsurance with no OOP max is not first-dollar coverage by any definition of the term. I expect most agents don't try to make a living on HDF because nearly no one wants it when the the additional cost of eliminating that $2K deductible is relatively low.

AND the $147 Part B deductible is so close to a 1st dollar benefit that is may as well be $0. There ain't a whole lot of difference. Regarding the Part A deductible, there hasn't been an under 65 group plan with a deductible that low for years.

Sure, the under 65 age people are taxed for Medicare. My point is that people RECEIVING Medicare have absolutely no idea what the actual current cost of the claims and by implication or definition what the actual premium for coverage is.

Try rearranging benefits to something like a $5,000 Deductible 100% HDHP plan. Current beneficiaries would scream.

 

[somarco]

The way to "save" Medicare is to lower the age to 50-55 to get healthier people into the program. I'm not advocating this, but it is the only logical answer.

Or cut it off at 75.

To paraphrase the Arrogant One that said, "At some point you've earned enough money", well at some point you have lived long enough. Time to move on.

Medicare must be privatized using vouchers.

MAPD essential does that already.

 

[yogooglethis]

I may do exactly that - ask my clients to write in & call. This topic keeps coming back every couple of years or so - the notion of dropping first dollar coverage. Although - more alarming is the suggestion that we do away with Medigap entirely & simply have a max out o pocket amount of $7500. Annually that could really kill lower to middle income people if they got sick. I think it's appalling that they're making these decisions in "hearings" that the public knows nothing about . . . . .

Folks that can legitimately afford to pay 2,000.00 a year or so in med supp premiums shouldn't be financial devastated in the oft chance of 7,500 in medical bills in a given year otherwise they shouldn't using so much of their income/nest egg buy a to a med supp policy to begin with. If the Med supp industry didn't do such a good job of convincing seniors that buying a med supp was necessary and if agents didn't use scare tactics to sell Med supps more folks would see this.

Believe me I want medicare supplements to stay around because they are lucrative for me, easy to sell and there is a big demand for them but the real truth IMO is the middle class would be better off not spending so much of their income on policies that for the vast majority pay out little in benefits in ratio to premiums paid mostly due to the fact that medicare allowable rates for medical services are so low. The Medicare Trust fund would also be a little better off if there was restrictions on first dollar policies. IMO folks who have a nest egg to protect should buy LTC insurance first and then buy med supp o if their income allows after paying the LTC premiums.Unlike medicare services the cost for LTC services are very high and only getting higher.

 

[cadylou]

If there's a chronic illness 7500 annually could be horrible vs the cost of insurance. The insurance can't pay until Medicare pays, so if there's over utilization, it's not due to first dollar coverage or any med supplement--the over utilization would be because of the way that basic medicare pays, the expenditures they approve, and other factors. Many people pay for supps for years and never over utilize, but they want to know they're protected in the event of serious illness. They should have that choice. Our congress does--except they don't pay for it at all.