Small Families Subsidizing Large Families.

[PatekPhilippe]

Look at Medicare deficit....that would only get worse.

Right now, Medicare covers the oldest and sickest demographic (seniors and disabled); not only that, but only $2.9 billion of the nearly $231 billion revenue for part A comes from premiums paid by its clients. This will add millions of premium-paying, younger and healthier people to the rolls.

they are only going to lower the age to opt in to 55 years or something right?....basically the way we Americans live, our bodies begin falling apart around 50-55 years old...they may be paying premiums but they are DEFINATELY NOT paying the full share of what's going to be paid by the government to the hospital...and for those who say the government reimbursement allowances will be lowered...guess what...your level of quality healthcare just went down the toilet. Hospitals are in business to make money as well as provide the best medical care on the planet bar none. If they aren't getting paid their staff will look for work in places where they are actually going to make some money.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

yes it's fair!!!

It is not only fair, it is how the insurance business model works.

And this is why Medicare is costing us more....because we do not have the healthy, non needy, paying in to the pool of medicare insurance with premiums, that could offset the needs of those who are sick....no?

Lord knows that's why I'm going to work today---to pay other people's bills. NOT

Actually that's exactly what you do every single day you go to work.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I'm thinking that part of the reason that many posters object to the fact that smaller families are paying for larger families is not that they don't agree we all have to share the burden of childcare, but because many people think that having too many kids is being greedy and uses up more resources, not just health care.

I'm thinking you don't understand how insurance companies work....so I will repeat...

A family of 2 pays xxxx dollars for xxxxxxxxx dollars in LIFETIME COVERAGE....a family of 8 pays the EXACT SAME PREMIUM FOR THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF LIFETIME DOLLAR AMOUNT COVERAGE....I can't make it any simpler than that.

So a family of 3 is NOT supporting a family of 8 with respect to healthcare coverage....the premise that they are is just plain crazy.

Now, if Obamacare passes.....then you can bitch because that is EXACTLY what will transpire with his plan....with the lifetime caps removed it will pay to have a bigger family.

 

[Anguille]

I'm thinking that part of the reason that many posters object to the fact that smaller families are paying for larger families is not that they don't agree we all have to share the burden of childcare, but because many people think that having too many kids is being greedy and uses up more resources, not just health care.

I'm thinking you don't understand how insurance companies work....so I will repeat...

A family of 2 pays xxxx dollars for xxxxxxxxx dollars in LIFETIME COVERAGE....a family of 8 pays the EXACT SAME PREMIUM FOR THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF LIFETIME DOLLAR AMOUNT COVERAGE....I can't make it any simpler than that.

So a family of 3 is NOT supporting a family of 8 with respect to healthcare coverage....the premise that they are is just plain crazy.

Now, if Obamacare passes.....then you can bitch because that is EXACTLY what will transpire with his plan....with the lifetime caps removed it will pay to have a bigger family.

You're assuming all families use up their coverage to the limit.

 

[uscitizen]

The lifetime cap is not removed under the current senate version of Obamacare.

 

[manifold]

Right now, most health insurance premiums are structured in such a way that a family with 1 child pays the same as a family with 8 kids.

Is this fair?

Up front, probably not. But the family with 8 kids still gets stuck paying all the co-pays for every kid so their overall healthcare bill is still a lot more.

 

[Emma]

Look at Medicare deficit....that would only get worse.

Right now, Medicare covers the oldest and sickest demographic (seniors and disabled); not only that, but only $2.9 billion of the nearly $231 billion revenue for part A comes from premiums paid by its clients. This will add millions of premium-paying, younger and healthier people to the rolls.

they are only going to lower the age to opt in to 55 years or something right?

i don't know; that's one proposal. I think it should be the universal health system for us all.

 

[Meister]

Right now, Medicare covers the oldest and sickest demographic (seniors and disabled); not only that, but only $2.9 billion of the nearly $231 billion revenue for part A comes from premiums paid by its clients. This will add millions of premium-paying, younger and healthier people to the rolls.

they are only going to lower the age to opt in to 55 years or something right?

i don't know; that's one proposal. I think it should be the universal health system for us all.

I don't need the type of government care that I would receive, Emma. It's not good for America, and not good for the economy. You put all your trust into one institute, and have to live with whatever they want you to live with. If you want competition, where is it? I don't trust the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Franks, and Dodds, and whoever else they replace them with. PLUS, THEY WOULDN'T ACCEPT THE THE KIND OF COVERAGE THAT YOU AND I WILL GET. Doesn't that create a red flag for you, it sure does with me.

 

[LilOlLady]

Right now, most health insurance premiums are structured in such a way that a family with 1 child pays the same as a family with 8 kids.

Is this fair?

No, that is not true. Anyone that has private HC pays a premium for each member of the family.

 

[LilOlLady]

At 55 most have paid into the system for 25 years and they are beginning to have health problems and not covered by private HC and many do not live to collect medicare and what they have paid in goes to someone who has not paid in. 25 years is long enough.
If 55 year old is still working he is still paying into the system.

 

[saveliberty]

Right now, most health insurance premiums are structured in such a way that a family with 1 child pays the same as a family with 8 kids.

Is this fair?

No, that is not true. Anyone that has private HC pays a premium for each member of the family.

You have no idea what your talking about LOL. AVG-JOE is correct.

 

[saveliberty]

At 55 most have paid into the system for 25 years and they are beginning to have health problems and not covered by private HC and many do not live to collect medicare and what they have paid in goes to someone who has not paid in. 25 years is long enough.
If 55 year old is still working he is still paying into the system.

Can you please speak in complete sentences? Private insurance covers health problems. That is why people pay for it. The medicare tax paid now goes to people using the system now. It is not saved until you need it. Also, someone should have gotten off their lazy ass and started working at age 18 or younger. Your example has the person starting work at age 30. What a joke. Work 25 years the world owes you everything.

 

[rightwinger]

If we had National Health Care all this would go away.

But that would make us socialists

 

[RadiomanATL]

You always may choose to opt out and research an individual policy. In that arena the insurance companies do compete for your business.

Don't like your current benefits package? Get a new employer. Your complaints have no basis in reality.

Do you work for an insurance company? It sounds like you are saying people should just accept however they want things to be.

Individual policies are more expensive and changing jobs is not as easy as you present it to be.
It's actually your suggestions which have no basis in reality

So you say that individual policies are more expensive...and changing jobs isn't easy...SOOOooooo....that leaves you accepting the benefits package your employer offers you.

Those are the choices. Those 3. Gnashing teeth and whining about how it isn't fair doesn't change anything. Nor have I seen any realistic changes to those three options that would keep costs down, or at the very least at the same rate, and not be subsidized by other taxpayers.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Either way, it's a dumb idea that would be too expensive to administer.

Don't insurance companies already waste a ridiculous percentage of their profits on paperwork? I've read somewhere that they spend more on administrative costs than actual healthcare.

So the solution is to add more paperwork for individually tailored plans within a company benefits package?

 

[RadiomanATL]

I don't know... every insurance plan I have ever considered, and there have been many, has had 4 categories for premiums:

1. Employee​

2. Employee + Spouse​

3. Employee + Children​

4. Employee + Spouse + Children​

I have never seen one that charges more for more kids. It's always 'all or nothing'.

*Shrug*

So opt out of the company plan and get a private plan.

You are OFF BASE on this Radio....

I have just looked in to getting an individual private health insurance plan here in maine, and for the 2 of us it is over $25,000 a year for the 2 of us and $12,000 plus a year to just cover me, while the group policy at my husband's work was around $400 a month for the 2 of us....no one really has a choice but to go with the plan that ones company chooses.

Cares

I'm so off base that you just said exactly what I have been saying? That you have 3 basic choices?

1. Opt out and get an individual plan
2. Find a new job with a different benefits package.
3. Accept the benefits that your employer offers you.

You chose option 3. But the others are still options you may choose to take.

 

[AVG-JOE]

You always may choose to opt out and research an individual policy. In that arena the insurance companies do compete for your business.

Don't like your current benefits package? Get a new employer. Your complaints have no basis in reality.

Do you work for an insurance company? It sounds like you are saying people should just accept however they want things to be.

Individual policies are more expensive and changing jobs is not as easy as you present it to be.
It's actually your suggestions which have no basis in reality

So you say that individual policies are more expensive...and changing jobs isn't easy...SOOOooooo....that leaves you accepting the benefits package your employer offers you.

Those are the choices. Those 3. Gnashing teeth and whining about how it isn't fair doesn't change anything. Nor have I seen any realistic changes to those three options that would keep costs down, or at the very least at the same rate, and not be subsidized by other taxpayers.

Seriously people! What ever gave you the idea your problems count for shit in a democracy?

What the fuck were you thinking?!?!