ACA elimination of Medicare Advantage subsidies is a very good thing

[eridani]

Also the preventive care and closing the donut hole.

Really great if you are 65 or over. But what if you are age 50-64? You will be paying three times as much for inadequate coverage. Worse, Democrats may very well cave and raise the Medicare age to 69 or 70 on the grounds that those not allowed in will be able to buy crappy bronze coverage at triple rates for a few more years. This would amount to nothing less than mass murder, and all older people need to be watching how this plays out very, very carerully indeed. Be prepared to raise holy hell about Simpson-Bowles this December.

[limpyhobbler]

1. I don't get it...

Why will some people be paying three times as much for coverage?

What part of the law causes that?

[eridani]

3. ACA specifically allows age rating

Premiums can be three times as much due to age.

[Hoyt]

6. The multiple is more than that now, not to mention women pay more now.

And now if you have a chronic condition, your rate can be a whole lot more than others. Under ACA -- nope.

Employees may not notice those differences now, but go look at individual market rates.

Now, one issue I think we have to deal with is that these facts will cause health, younger males to pay more than under current system.

[eridani]

7. Any age rating at all is a total disaster for older people forced out of the labor market

A cheaper overpriced useless product is still overpriced and useless.

[Hoyt]

11. Then they will get subsidies. I'm "aged," but I don't think those younger

Should have to pay full differential. They have it tough enough right now.

[eridani]

13. Young people in other countries do, on the grounds that they expect to get old

But then, other countries with private insurance DICTATE what the basic benefits package will be, and what it will cost. They also flat out forbid not only age rating, but also claims denial.

[eridani]

14. Actually it is the insurance company that will get the subsidies

You have to pay up front and get the money back when you file taxes.

[Hoyt]

15. In other words, government is paying all or part of your premiums.

Makes sense to me.

[eridani]

16. But not up front. You pay first, get money back later

How many lower income people can afford to do that?

[Hoyt]

18. Do you know how to adjust your tax withholding? Then you'll get it back same month.

OK, what's next?

[eridani]

19. You can adjust that with accuracy only if you have regular work at a consistent wgee

If you guess wrong, you get fucked royally in April.

[Hoyt]

20. Fine, just refuse it because you will never be satisfied.

You can calculate all that with better precision than you can an emergency medical issues that won't wait. Try predicting that.

[eridani]

21. I'm fine. I'm on Medicare

My concern is for older people with irregular low-paid work. They are totally fucked if they have to buy useless bronze crap for three times what everyone else has.

[Hoyt]

22. I'm more concerned about everyone - not just one group.

I think ACA comes as close to something helping most people while transitioning away from our current sickie system, that we could have gotten right now. . I'm close to Medicare too, but I also worry about those who'll be working to fund future payments.

[SoCalDem]

2. They usually grandfather in people who "are approaching" retirement age

usually 50+ are excluded from dramatic changes.

[eridani]

4. Yes, if your employer has a decent insurance plan

This does not apply to people forced out of the labor market due to their age.

[liberal N proud]

5. The whole ACA has little effect on people who's employer has decent insurance

ACA addresses those whose employers do not provide insurance.

[TheWraith]

9. FYI, employment for those 50+ is at an all time high.

The unemployment rate if you're over 50 is about 6%. Compare that to 13 percent if you're 18-30. So the meme about older people being forced out of their jobs by younger people isn't remotely accurate.

[eridani]

10. You bloody well know that the real unemployment rate has nothing to do with

--official numbers. People who are unemployed but not no longer receiving benefits are no longer counted, and older workers make up the vast majority of long-term unemployed. Younger workers are most badly victimized by underemployment.

[TheWraith]

8. Geez, not this shit again.

Hyperventilating and pants-wetting about a supposed conspiracy by Democrats to destroy Medicare? Funny, isn't it, how that claim came about RIGHT AFTER Democrats started hitting the Republicans with the Ryan budget's plan to end Medicare? And it was immediately picked up and pushed by all the Republican-friendly "left wing" media outlets like FireDogLake?

Yeah, I'm sure that's a coincidence!

[eridani]

12. No, it's the Republicans who are working at destroying Medicare. Dems are only guilty of

-- an unacceptably wussy defense. The Democrats hit at the Ryan plan when it first came out, but are being vewy, vewy quiet this year. Pelosi led the fight against Simpson-Bowles at the end of 2010, but she has publicly stated that she will support Simpson-Bowles at the end of this year, including raising the age of Medicare eligibility. That alone is an act of mass murder that will make Al Qaeda seriously jealous.

[eridani]

17. Let's see the URL clearly demostrating that Senator Ron Wyden is not lying.

ACA and the Ryan plan for Medicare are identical

Plans to use health care reform as an excuse to eliminate Medicare entirely

Voters over 55 now trust Repukes over Obama and Democrats on Medicare and Social Security, despite the firm commitment of the former to abolish both. I picked up a 56% button at Senior Lobby Day last month. It stands for the percentage of likely voters over 55 this November.

http://www.pressherald.com/news/GOP-Medicare-plan-borrows-from-and-repeals-Obamas.html

But if Obama is re-elected and his health care law is upheld by the Supreme Court, Wyden sees Medicare exchanges and a premium support system as the basis for a deal to reduce health care costs. He said Democrats would be hard pressed to argue against the idea if it is working for people under 65 as a result of the health care overhaul.