I am on Medicare.. and Medicare is not free.. I had free insurance from work till I retired

[Peacetrain]

I never had to pay a penny.. now that I am on Medicare I have to pay 302.00 a month for part B.. medicare only covers 80% of your needs.. and trust me, your needs increase as you get older.. so I have seen a lot of talk about Medicare for all.. I just do not see how that works.. I have friends who pay closer to 450.00 a month because they have more complicated health histories.. My brother was able to benefit from ACA before he passed away, and he was only 50 (Diabetes is a horrid thing).. he could never have afforded 300.00 a month for Medicare..

That does not cover your prescription part D.. and for many those prescriptions can eat you alive..


I just thought about this after getting off the phone with a friend who is about to retire..

quick edit to add.... the 302 is my supplemental.. 135.50 is my part B.. together they cover the 20% medicare does not cover.. and then there is the 29.00 for Dental.. it ain't cheap folks.. plan your retirements well.

[theaocp]

1. What's your point?

Fix the situation for all or be another to explain what we can't have?

[Peacetrain]

3. My point is .. Medicare is expensive.. retirement is not for the weak of heart..

And I see some are talking about Medicare for all.. and I do not see how that works..

[theaocp]

7. You don't see how that CAN work?

Is it a question of paying for it? If so, you must know that's a conservative talking point. Whether we have the courage to tell the donors to fuck themselves and tax the rich is another question. Otherwise, what's the problem with making our case? Conservative bellyaching? Make. the. case.

[oldsoftie]

16. Because "tax the rich" wont raise nearly enough money to cover the costs. Go ahead, show the money.

Cut it any way you want, using todays health care figures, you can double the rate the rich pay and you'll still come up WAY short. And thats not even figuring in all the OTHER programs we keep talking about.
They do it in Europe because EVERYONE pays. But we refuse to do what they do to have what they have.

[NYMinute]

23. The point is

that people who are getting free or nominal-cost health insurance from employers or unions will NOT support MfA. Who would?

MfA is a losing proposition. Medicare for who want it (aka public option added to ACA) is the correct solution.

[Voltaire2]

67. That's fine. Most people with employer

based health insurance are not getting free insurance. Average employer premiums are around 6000/yr. Out of pocket costs add another 2500 to that.

The House and Senate bills for MFA do not simply extend Medicare, they replace it entirely with a comprehensive universal public insurance system that has no deductibles, and generally no co-pays.

[NYMinute]

133. lol

does that plan come with a free house, a free car and a free boat?

[Voltaire2]

138. No.

It is similar to what other developed countries provide for their people.

[SouthernProgressive]

79. I'm not the poster you responded to but my point would be that it shouldn't have...

been branded as medicare for all. Most of us fully understand that medicare is expensive and would continue the haves and have nots. You have to look further to see what many are promoting as medicare for all is actually much different than medicare.

[uawchild]

11. The only way insurance for all can work is simple...

You have an insurance pool that EVERYONE pays into according to their ability to pay and EVERYONE is covered.

Society then makes a decision on how much money it wishes to spend to establish a baseline of health care services.

There is no free lunch. We either want to provide a decent level of healthcare to everyone, or we don't. THAT will cost money.
But by having an actual national health care system in place, the idea is that health care would be provided in the most cost effective way possible and things like the poor letting conditions worsen and then showing up in emergency rooms will end. Comprehensive preventive care for all could save a lot of money.

But again, speaking as someone that has been self-insured for decades, there is no free lunch. Healthcare costs money.

[NYMinute]

26. ...

"From each according to their ability and to each according to their need."


hmmmmmmmmm where have I read it before?

[uawchild]

35. Sounds like something Jesus would support lol n/t

[BannonsLiver]

40. From wealthy conservatives.

[pandr32]

54. Actually how Canada did it

One card the same for everyone without flagging those who were 100% supplemented.

[The Mouth]

66. that is not happening

Great in theory, but politics is the art of the possible. There are a *LOT* of people all over the political spectrum who will skin and hang from the nearest lamppost with piano wire anyone *ANYONE*, Democrat or Republican, who even appears to suggest that what they have *NOW* be in the slightest degraded.

A system that covers people who wouldn't otherwise have coverage, or as good coverage, sure, and that's worth paying more taxes for. A system that replaces or takes away something they are happy with, no fucking way, no how, not under any circumstances, and you'll see people in MAGA hats and 'Fuck Trump' T-shirts working together to beat the literal and metaphorical crap out anyone suggesting it.

[bahrbearian]

21. How does it work? ask any other modern country.

Medicare is less expensive than what we have now, by trillions and everybody would be insured. once again it is less expensive.

[tymorial]

72. No it isn't. Medicare doesn't cover prescriptions and it only pays out at 80%

Anyone who has Medicare needs gap insurance. That is the reality no matter what anyone wants to believe. Under the current system Medicare cannot negotiate drug prices. They also pay out far less than commercial insurers. Unless the government regulates prescription and medical costs, the healthcare industry would not be able to sustain the transition. You would see layoffs and closing of facilities. I work in the industry, I know. We need to stop calling it medicare for all because medicare is not the solution. Universal Healthcare coverage with a completely new redesigned infrastructure is. Even if the ACA included a public option, the fact that Medicare cannot negotiate drug prices will mean that patients will be at the mercy of pharmacies and drug companies. The first time someone with a medicare plan needs medical services, they will realize just how much out of pocket costs are required. People who select a public option using Medicare as the plan will be under insured.

[LiberalLovinLug]

94. You are talking about two different things. One at a time.

Although one can follow the other. First establish a national healthcare service based on a compulsory tax. This is the equivalent of a giant pool for the medical insurance part. Eliminates the financial burdens of paying out the shareholders, and obscenely high CEO and executive wages and bonuses. It eliminates the profit factor, and all the stress and demands for quarterly results (transforming health care into right instead of a privilege). It covers basic medical service, including severe illness or injury, for every person, from cradle to grave, no matter where they live, no matter what their employment status is. ....And because there is such a large pool to draw from, it ends up be cheaper for everyone. Best of both. And what is not IMO discussed enough, the general stress level of a country is greatly reduced for everyone, with ones families health care coverage being worry free. I think this relief affects other areas of life, and the whole mental health of the country.

Now if a business wants to add to the basic service to attract workers, that is usually always allowed in other single payer countries. But many small and mid size companies don't even have their own extra coverage in Canada. Perhaps dental. Business actually benefits from a national tax payer funded basic health care plan, as they don't have to budget it into their costs. American companies have a disadvantage in that regard when bidding for international jobs. Which is why even when a Conservative government in other western democratic countries attain power they don't ever think about touching their own single payer health care service.

Now drug prices is another tangent. But if you have established already a successful medicare-for-all or whatever you want to call it, then the government department in charge can use that established large pool to negotiate with drug companies for cheaper prices. That is what Canada does.

[rgbecker]

136. The Drug/Pharmacutical industry should be nationalized.

Most of the research is already done by the National Institute of Health. Why this industry is done by for profit companies is beyond me. The areas of greatest need should be determined and the research dollars allocated there just as is done now with the NIH. If the capitalists need to get involved, let them bid on the manufacture of the drugs to get the cheapest supply available for the citizens. The billions spent on advertising, Executive salaries, sales etc. could go towards better outcomes for the afflicted.

[LiberalLovinLug]

150. Absolutely

Should have been done all at once when they moved to a single payer universal system here in Canada. The best they can do now is use the pool they have for medical "clients" to order most of the common and/or crucial drugs in bulk for reduced prices.

And don't get me started on dental insurance.

Let's not kid ourselves, its now going to be very difficult to implement with decades of ingrained private control of that industry. If the US would have jumped on board with universal single payer when all the other western democracies were initiating their own, in the 50's 60's you'd not even be having to have this debate now. There was a window there when these countries were re-building reshaping their economies after WW2.

Now there is the problem of asking the medical profession to get on board, which probably means the top end providers taking less. It means all hospitals are equal, as are all patients, and one hospital can't accumulate wealth in catering to wealthy clients in high end neighbourhoods. It means thousands of displaced workers in the insurance industry. Although I'd hope there'd be some plan to re-employ as many as they can in the new system. And the biggest hurdle might be that any shift now to single payer or a mixed system even, would require years of commitment by not only the populace, but most every Washington politician from both sides. Not to mention the MSM. So that Republicans don't simply dismantle the system when they get in power. I don't' know how you do that.

[SkyDaddy7]

73. Right, but you have to...

tear down the current system first. And the employer based system polls in the mid to upper 60 percentile approval which means you, we, whoever has to either convince them MfA will be better & cheaper "Trust Us" or somehow doing against their approval & risk the entire progressive movement for decades to come!

I personally think it needs to a process of teaching the public & building off the ACA which can be slowly converted overtime instead of trying to come in & nuke the current system!

It just won't work.

[snowybirdie]

154. Sorry to burst your bubble

In my house, two relatively healthy seniors from the midwest pay approximately $1,200 a month in deductions and actual out of pocket money for Medicare, its' supplement and drug insurance. A lot for most budgets.

[bahrbearian]

156. Nice try

Medicare-for-all (Senate and House)
Both Medicare-for-all bills would eliminate cost sharing completely. This means no monthly premiums, no copayments for going to the doctor, and no deductible to meet before coverage kicks in.

The only place where enrollees might pay out of pocket is under the Sanders plan, which does give the government discretion to allow some charges for prescription drugs — but even that would be capped at $200 per year.

This is very similar to how the Canadian health care system works but is actually quite different from European countries. Most countries across the Atlantic actually do require patients to pay something for going to the doctor. In France, for example, patients are expected to pay 30 percent of the cost of their doctor visit — and in the Netherlands, copayments range from $10 to $30.

Does your household have a higher income?
current medicare plan calls for ..
Medicare is currently similar to private health insurance in that it expects enrollees to pay a significant share of their medical costs.

The public program, for example, currently charges seniors a $134 monthly premium (and a higher premium for wealthier enrollees). Traditional Medicare also has deductibles and co-insurance. An estimated 80 percent of Medicare enrollees have additional coverage to help cover those costs.
sorry to burst your bubble.

[snowybirdie]

162. Calling it Medicare for All

is misleading. The proposed plans differ from traditional Medicare. Very confusing to most. Healthcare needs to be addressed however. A very big bubble I'd say!

[pnwmom]

76. Low income seniors can get Medicaid on top of Medicare. I'm sure the same thing

would happen with Medicare for all.

[DownriverDem]

104. Yep

Your supplemental is based on where you live (zip code). My sister pays $14 per month for her BC/BS PPO Medicare Advantage. It includes prescription coverage. Folks who live in northern Michigan pay a lot more for supplemental coverage. I would love to know the details of Medicare for All.

[Desert grandma]

139. Supplemental Medigap insurance also depends on when you purchase it.

If you sign up for it along with original medicare when you are first eligible you can sign up for any supplemental medigap insurance without going through underwriting. If, however, you do not sign up for original medicare and instead use a "Medicare Advantage" plan, you will have lots of co-pays with such a plan and if you want to go back to original medicare you may have to go through underwriting where you can be rejected for a pre-existing condition. Those ACA pre-existing condition rules do not apply to supplemental Medigap plans, unfortunately. You have to find a plan that will accept you and perhaps pay more. The other thing I learned when hubby and I went on Medicare...Supplemental plans are rated in 3 ways. Age attained...these plans will rise every year on your birthday and can also increase due to the cost of the program in your area. Age acquired...these plans will never increase as you get older and will stay at the rate they are when you purchase them. They can increase based on increased cost of coverage in your area. Community rated...This plan uses a rating system that considers everyone in the plan in that community. They usually offer a lower rate to younger people signing up, but it does and will increase over time. Most plans are Age Attained..they increase based on both age and cost of care in the community. In out area, only 1 plan was Age Acquired..It was Trans America. That is the one we are on. The only Community Rated plan I know of is AARP. We pay 135.50 for part B, and pay 134 and 138 for supplemental. In the 6 years I have had our "age acquired "plan, it has increased by 8 dollars. I pay 20 a month for part D prescription drug plan and my husband gets his at the VA. Original Medicare does not limit you to certain "networks" either. You can be seen by any doc or facility that accepts Medicare. My advice...DO YOUR HOMEWORK REGARDING MEDICARE AND SUPPLEMENTAL INSURANCE. It can be very confusing!

[ooky]

122. Medicare is not free, but it is affordable health care for age 65+ people.

When I was on my employer plan my copay was $154 month.

Between the ages 62-64 I had retired and the cost of a silver BCBS plan was between $1300-1400 a month. Had it not been for the ACA subsidy I would have had to pay that. Some don't qualify for that subsidy, but before I retired, I made sure I arranged things so I did.

When I hit age 65 my cost became $135 for part B plus $112 for supplement plan "G" plus $17 for part D drug coverage. Total $264. $110 more than what I paid through employer coverage, but light years less than someone in their 60s who has no employer insurance.

[Skittles]

140. I am curious why you retired before age 65

(I understand a lot of people have to)

[ooky]

148. Health reasons.

The physical requirements of my job were negatively affecting my health.

[Skittles]

157. I cannot even imagine being in a physical job at my age

and I am very fit

[ooky]

158. This is one of many reasons why the ACA's subsidies are so important.

The physical demands of so many people's jobs wear them down before they attain age 65. Without employer insurance, there is no way they can afford premiums of $1300 to $1400 a month while waiting for Medicare eligibility. So many have to go without insurance and then encounter a bankrupting medical event. Obama tried to help these people, but Trump and Republican policies are out to destroy them, all so the wealthy can have even more money.

[Skittles]

161. absolutely correct

drives me nuts when I hear the advice JUST WORK UNTIL YOU'RE 70!......as if everyone has a cushy desk job

[brush]

160. What some don't factor in is the deductible amount employer plans...

hit you with if you or family have to use them. Often it's so high the employee ends up paying unanticipated costs. And it can be in the thousands and you feel like you don't really have insurance even though they're taking money out of your check every month if your employee plan doesn't kick in anything until you hit three thousand dollars. It happened to me.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

141. Medicare is expensive and weak because all it covers is sick and elderly people.

Why is this so hard to understand.

You (through your labor) paid in to a for-profit insurance industry that skimmed the cream off the top of the best years of your health life. And when you need it the most, you get pawned off on the government.

Maybe if you didn’t spend 30 years of your healthy productive life paying 30-40% in overhead and profit, you might have better healthcare now.

Splitting the risk pool makes no sense. Unless you are a healthcare executive.

[Soxfan58]

130. His point is

Medicare is expensive!!! Jesus don't you get it its not free. You want it for everyone? Everyone will pay. Repubs have screwed the elderly to the point some medicare payments are more than employee provided insurance.

[yardwork]

146. "Medicare for all" isn't the same as free healthcare.

[uawchild]

2. Are you getting a supplement insurance plan?

lol No I am not an insurance agent.

But don't forget to cover that other 20%, that could bankrupt people.

[brush]

159. That's important. There are several of them and many have that cost...

taken out of their SS monthly benefit.

[question everything]

4. Many do not realize that Medicare is an insurance company, not a health care provider

And, frankly, if we eliminate all private insurance, many hospitals would have to quit.

[Peacetrain]

5. I have never really thought about it before, and talking with my friend

it hit me like a ton of bricks.. we were talking costs.. and I realized my brother could never have afforded that ..

[theaocp]

10. Please explain the concept of hospitals "quitting".

What does that look like?

[dsc]

25. they close down

Last edited Fri Jun 7, 2019, 02:52 PM - Edit history (1)

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/state-by-state-breakdown-of-102-rural-hospital-closures.html

States that didn't expand Medicaid has seen several close. I could easily see my town being next.

[hedda_foil]

38. You mean Medicaid expansion. Not Medicare!

[dsc]

65. thanks

[tymorial]

126. Medicare pays less then commercial insurers

If we went to a Medicare base system with the same rates many Healthcare facilities simply would not be able to operate at the same level. They would be closures and or layoffs for certain

[Hoyt]

30. Not sure how many hospitals would "quit," but a lot would have to cut back. Fact is, hospitals

get paid more by most private insurance companies than Medicare pays. And Medicare pays more than Medicaid.

Most hospitals will tell you that they lose money on Medicare, although there's some exaggeration in that, and I'm not sure cutting back on some of the frills and competition hospitals engage in is so bad. Also, the idea that 4 or 5 hospitals in a city need to provide all services -- like cancer care, obstetrics, mental health, etc. -- is highly inefficient.

The big question is whether consumers/patients are willing to accept the things that would make the system affordable and efficient. I have my doubts about that. The complaints about the system will explode the first time someone got transferred to a cancer facility, is denied a drug they want that is three times the cost of a similar drug, etc.

On the other hand, those of us who remember health care costs going up 15%. 20% or more annually, seeing elderly people cutting pills in thirds to make it, people forgoing care, etc., will be grateful.

But, the OP is correct, Medicare-for-All -- without a lot of changes -- will not appear better to most people, other than those who forgo care now.

In any event, it will likely be more costly to adopt a Single Payer System than most people think, and there are still a lot -- like close to 50% of people -- who feel moving quickly to Single Payer is cramming it down their throat.

That's why I think a Public Option will be the fastest way to move toward an improved health system. If it's as good as we think, people will gravitate to it quickly. At that point, it will be much easier to fold everything into one system.

[question everything]

137. A few years ago spouse had a knee replacement, 3 days in the hospital

Hospital bill was $42,000! Medicare paid $13,000, our private insurance paid $1,200 (all round numbers) and our share was $200.

And, obviously the hospital had to accept these amounts. And this was just the hospital; not the surgeons, not the anaesthesiologists, not the physical therapy not even another $900 charge submitted to our private insurance which paid $280.

And I remember, even posting here: either the charge should be $42,000 or $15,000. But in reality, hospitals have to accept what insurance pay them, each with its own agreement so that the hospitals can treat individuals who just walk in.

I think that some of the tweaks that the Republicans did to the ACA was to remove the demand that every person should carry some health insurance.

And I think that if the hospital would have to operate within the confines, yes, the confines of the payments by Medicare, it would have to go our of business - well, it is a not for profit - or severely cut staff.

[emmaverybo]

37. Bingo.

[lostnfound]

53. Unless the system was funded as if we gave a damn about each other.

What we give a damn about as a society is the market cap on insurance companies and big pharma.

[luvtheGWN]

101. "Unless the system was funded as if we gave a damn about each other"

Yes, that's the truest statement made in this thread.

The OP stated that her healthcare was "free" while she was working. No, it wasn't. Her employer insurance was deducted from her paycheque, and wasn't she lucky that she didn't need to change employers?

Someone else said that many hospitals would have to close. Funny, NO hospitals closed when our universal healthcare system was instituted in 1963. We are still seeing new hospitals built to accommodate the needs of our growing population. True, there isn't one in every little burg.......

Here's the thing, folks: a universal healthcare system (state-run, and funded by both fed and state governments) depends on taxation (and I know you guys hate taxes) but the savings -- for medical equipment, drugs etc. --- are enormous compared to what you currently have. Not to mention not being afraid to go bankrupt, or die prematurely because you can't pay for your insulin, or not stressing over reaching your insurance limit, or not having co-pays.

Eleven years ago, I was diagnosed with breast cancer. I joined an on-line support group where most posters were from the U.S. I was horrified by some of the stories they had to tell about receiving, and paying for, their care. Too many stories of meds often 10 times what they cost in Canada; hospital bills the same; dealing with insurance companies who seemed to always say "No" the first time around, and weeks of arguing with them. All major stressors. It was just unbelievable to me.

You don't have a healthcare system in the U.S. You have chaos -- unless you are part of the 1%. And the lack of understanding the DIFFERENCE between health insurance and home/car insurance is mind-boggling.

Rant over! Thanks for listening.

[walkingman]

6. We need to push for Dental and Hearing to be added to Medicare. We can spend billions if not

trillions on weapons of mass destruction without any issues but doing something for people is considered over spending. We definately have a priority problem.

[Peacetrain]

9. Yep that is another 29.00 a month

add that to the costs..

[ginnyinWI]

84. We have Medicare too--

We pay the $135 per month for part B. (When we start drawing our Social Security it will be deducted from that before we get that.)

For the rest, no supplemental: we have a part C plan, a Medicare Advantage plan that works like an HMO. Free visits to primary care physician, co-pays for specialists. Includes part D--most prescriptions are no co-pay until you get to the higher tiers of drugs.

For part C there would be no monthly fee at all, except that we wanted to include a dental plan. It's not a great plan, but for $22 a month we get two checkups with bitewing x-rays per year, which about equals the $22 a month around here. But this level of part C also features slightly lower co-pays for doctor and hospital visits, so it's probably better to have it than not. We also have a dental discount plan that is cheap and gives us a 20% discount on extra work.

I'd advise you to look into Medicare Advantage plans in your area. Worth it for most reasonably healthy people.

[pazzyanne]

109. Agree. Medicare Advantage plans are the way to go. PPO, not HMO that is.

I pay $135 for Medicare part B. I lost my Advantage Choice plan this past year because the county where I lived is not able to offer it. I looked into Supplemental plans, but to get the same coverage, I had to pay another $375 a month which I could not afford on Social Security. I was lucky enough to find one Medicare Advantage plan that was offered in my county. It covered the same things that my Medicare Advantage Choice plan did, which included prescription drug coverage for $70 a month. That covers me pretty well, but because of medical diagnosis that are very expensive, I also qualify for Medicaid. Those three plans cover my medical bills completely.

[llmart]

91. Agree.

The three things most seniors need or are going to need are dental, hearing and vision, yet none of that is covered.

So yes, Medicare for all is just a meme and many people who keep repeating that meme don't know much about Medicare and how costly it can be.

[roody]

129. It is covered in Bernie Sanders plan.

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

8. Medicare costs vary according to income

Costs per month are derived from your income in the previous tax year. They do not depend on your age or health status. I am financially comfortable and pay about 200 per month. I guess you must be doing quite well to pay 300. (Congratulations.)

Presumably your brother's costs would have been much less than either of us.

[Peacetrain]

13. oh crap... the 302 is my supplemental.. 135.50 is my part B.. got that turned around

the 302 cover to make up that 20% so it really is 302 plus 135 to cover what medicare does not cover....

[zipplewrath]

22. Well, you realize

135.50 is really cheap right? Truth is, 437 is cheap. "retail" would cost you somewhere in the neighborhood of $800 and would probably come with significant out of pocket requirements.

Medicaid is for people who can't afford it, and the ACA expanded who qualified for that. The exchanges provided a needs based method of accessing insurance.

But in the end, the intent of Medicare for All is to get the government in a position to control the costs of health care so we can start paying the kinds of costs the rest of the world does.

[Big Blue Marble]

56. It may be better than the alternative, but it is hardly cheap.

Most retired people are living on their SS and not to much additional income.
It is a burden for many. Additionally they are paying for Part D for drugs and
paying for drugs as well. It is a major strain on most retired people' budget.

[zipplewrath]

98. yabbutt

Like I say, first of all the truly retired poor are on medicaid. The medicaid expansion was supposed to help with this too. And part D was created (by Bush no less) because the cost of medicine was becoming such a huge problem. My spouse has tire 3 drugs she is on and she falls into the donut hole each year. It ain't cheap, but without it, things could double or triple. And as I say, the folks calling for Medicare for All aren't just doing it because medicare is perfect, but because it creates the same kinds of cost leverage that single payer would create.

[Hoyt]

44. And that $135 and $302 don't cover all of Part B and Part A Medicare costs.

Point is, what we shell out monthly for the Part B (mostly doctor fees) premium and and supplement is probably only 30% or so of the overall costs of care for Medicare beneficiaries. That other 70% is paid by Medicare taxes.

[Peacetrain]

50. Exactly that is what I am saying... Medicare does not cover all the services.. you have to pay the

part b and then that will not cover everything that medicare does not cover.. and you have to pick up that supplemental.. other wise you are trying to pay any costs that come up on a credit card., out of your savings.. its can be really tough..

[hedda_foil]

47. You're overpaying by a LOT on your supplemental policy.

All Medicare Supplement policies are standardized. You probably have Plan F (the most expensive) from United Health through AARP. That's the most expensive you can possibly have. If you shop around a little you can save at least $100 a month for exactly the same Plan F. You can save more by choosing Plan G or N which are very similar but much less pricey.

I do not sell insurance. I just did a lot of research.

[Peacetrain]

51. So did I research.. complicated health history.. has its costs

[Hoyt]

58. That's true if you get a supplement when first eligible for Medicare. If you wait, you'll be charged

more depending on expected health needs. There are some pretty big differences in premiums depending on the company. But again, if you wait, some companies won't even offer a supplement.

I'm sure some readers are saying "that's not right." It's not, but it isn't going to change anytime soon even if we get a majority in both chambers and win the White House.

[sprinkleeninow]

113. Yes. I initially considered F, but then reviewed G.

First time this year going full Medicare.

Already purchased a D plan and a dental one-add-ons. Need to enroll in Part B then a supplemental. Not ready for an Advantage plan yet. Got a new PCP last year and Advantage plans are managed and you should stay in the network to realize savings. AFAIK.

Ow, my poor head! 🤕

[Peacetrain]

121. Its not for the faint of heart that is for sure..

[vsrazdem]

108. I don't know where you live, but my supplemental is $117 a month. You realize that all supplemental

policies cover the exact same benefits. I could take my plan for 117 a month or go with a Blue Cross plan for 285 a month for the exact same benefits. You might want to look into a different supplemental when open enrollment comes around.

[Demsrule86]

41. MFA would cost me quite a bit and is not adaptable for families...employer provides subsudies now

but I have to pay the entire thing with MFA...It won't become law anytime soon and we can do better in my opinion...some sort of universal coverage.

[Voltaire2]

100. That isn't true.

“I have to pay the entire thing with MFA” - uh no. You might have an increase in your payroll tax, or income tax, but your employer will also be paying. The costs are shared, as they are now for most of us in the private systems. However the taxes work out, they will be offset for most people by the elimination of employee premiums, deductibles, co-pays and billing wtfs.

[KayF]

12. the Medicare-for-all proposals expand Medicare beyond what it currently covers

so they would include the things that are considered supplemental now.

But I think the issues you raise would be issues in the Medicare buy-in plans.

[Big Blue Marble]

27. The only way that will happen under our current political and corporate structure

is to use the Medicare Part C (Advantage Care Model). This HMO model would place even more
control of our health care in the hands of the insurance companies.

This will not bring the health care outcomes we all seek. We must to a model that removes
the insurance companies from the equation. Right now they have too much leverage and we
must be aware of their continuing influence in redesigning our system so that it means profits
for them instead of health for us.

[Demsrule86]

45. I can't see losing all those jobs. It won't happen and if we try...out goes our elected.

We can have a system like Germany where Insurance companies exist but are under strict control.

[Voltaire2]

102. There will still be a need for many of those jobs.

I think you meant “all that profit”. Yeah, that will be gone and that is why the healthcare industry is working overtime spreading nonsense about MFA.

[Demsrule86]

144. MFA is not a winning issue....workplace insurance Wiill derail it as it

happened with Clinton. Why would folks pay more for what will most likely be less coverage. The ACA with a public option could work and would be supported by voters.

[Voltaire2]

145. They would be paying much less for

more coverage.

[Demsrule86]

165. Not true. MFA is EXPENSIVE.

[Voltaire2]

168. Nope. Unbiased assessments evaluating

the full costs of MFA compared to the current system show that it is much less expensive.

[Yavin4]

14. You paid for your employer based healthcare with lower wages

Because they paid for your health care, they paid you less in wages. Nothing is free.

[uawchild]

18. this n/t

[Demsrule86]

46. They will never give employees extra wages if they no longer have to pay health care.

[mr_lebowski]

77. So ... make them all contribute to MFA like they now pay for private insurance?

Seems pretty straightforward ...

[Demsrule86]

143. Sure that will happen. MFA is not going to work.

[seaglass]

120. Correct. I did not get any extra salary though I never took insurance through my employer. n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

147. Your anecdotal evidence is just that.

The fact is, wages have stagnated in large part due to rising healthcare costs.


So much for the OP’s “free” healthcare they received while working.

Keeping this hugely inefficient system is hurting everyone. Including the people who get “free” healthcare from their employers.

We can’t sustain a healthcare system that should be combining the largest pool of risk (young healthy people and old sick people) under the same umbrella - but doesn’t because there are billions at stake for large financial interests. It doesn’t make any sense to split the pools up among hundreds of companies all trying to maximize their skim off the top while they can before you get pawned off on Medicare which, as it currently stands, caters to the worst imaginable pool - the sick and elderly.

Combine the pools. Spread the risk. And take out the profit motive. Remove the giant inefficiencies.

Insurance is only about moving dollars. It’s not about innovation. The only thing they innovate is figuring out ways to not pay back your hard earned premiums you paid to them.

https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/new-report-shows-the-harmful-effect-rising-health-care-costs-have-on-wage-stagnation-2018-09-04

New report shows the harmful effect rising health care costs have on wage stagnation

[seaglass]

167. Really? I have worked for more than one company and have never seen that an employee gets a higher

salary if they decline benefits. How could they fairly do this? There is no guarantee that an employee wouldn't opt in to insurance during annual enrollment in the future. Do you think then the company would take the portion of the salary back that was given to an employee for not taking insurance? I don't think so.

I have no argument about what should be done about health insurance and I don't disagree that the rising cost of insurance is a factor (or an excuse) in wage stagnation. I am just skeptical about employees being the beneficiaries of company savings on health insurance.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

169. They may not be the beneficiaries but they sure get the detrimental effects.

Again, your anecdotes aren’t evidence and you are confusing the issue. This is a macroeconomic issue - not some individual friends of yours negotiating their pay.

The fact is, over time, wages have been depressed due to employer eating higher health insurance costs. This is one of the causes of wage stagnation.

Of course employers aren’t going to give everyone a raise once single payer kicks in. But this will remove one of the causes of wage stagnation. The “market” will work itself out - with some help from unions and our legislators if we ever stop with the “never ever gonna happen” attitudes.

“Our analysis illustrates the escalation of health care premiums, which have absorbed most or all compensation growth in recent years for many workers -- leaving little or nothing to add to their paychecks. Wage gains have often been more than absorbed by higher employee premiums. If we continue ignoring the reasons for our out-of-control health care spending, there will be destructive effects that exact an ever-higher claim on the American Dream of economic progress for all those willing to work for it."

[asiliveandbreathe]

15. Here is a chart for cost of medicare part b - 2019...

2020 who knows..

https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/2019-medicare-parts-b-premiums-and-deductibles

80% coverage - that is why it is important to attend seminars...compare medicare supplemental coverage

[Big Blue Marble]

17. Remember you also have at least $135 deducted from your social security payments each month.

That deduction increases up to $460 as your income increases. You are actually paying
at least $437 each month plus what you pay for Part D and any drugs you pay out of pocket.

With the exception of those who qualify for medicaid, the average Medicare recipient living
on SS and savings must spend nearly $6000 per year for their coverage.

When they say Medicare for all, there is an implication that is would be free which is misleading.

Of course, you have the option of choose the Republican designed Medicare Part C or as it is
called Advantage Care. Privatized corporate directed Medicare HMO coverage which controls
your medical care and significantly limits your choice but costs much less because it is government
subsidized

[Peacetrain]

20. I got my supplemental and part b turned around.. corrected it in the edit in my post

but yep the point of my post is, Medicare is not a free program..that covers everyone....

[Big Blue Marble]

28. Yes thank for making this point.

I think many are under the assumption that when you get to Medicare age all medical costs are covered.
It is a great plan and if we were left to the devices of the private insurance industry we would be much
worse off or not covered at all, but it is definitely not free. It is my greatest expense in retirement.

[Peacetrain]

61. I hear that.. hubby and I together are close to 1,000 a month in Medicare costs with the part be and

supplemental.. and I forgot the drug part.. and Big Blue.. we were told we were doing good because we would be bringing home 80% of what we made in our working lives in retirement.. but that 80% is stagnant.. we get little costs of living raises in our Soc Sec, but that gets eaten up by the part b going up.. and then we have to find that 1000 each month to covers our costs through medicare.. its tough.. and it is our biggest expense for sure

[stopbush]

19. The supplemental costs $0 where I live in CA.

Added vision, hearing and dental for an additional $20 a month.

[Peacetrain]

24. wow .. it gets a little tight trying to get both of our medicares and supplemental paid.. happy for

you!! that is wonderful.. we are talking close to a 1,000 a month for hubby and I.. heres the corker.. we had our insurance paid at work.. except for the deductible (which I still have to pay) yearly..

[Big Blue Marble]

39. That is because you chose the Republican designed Part C.

It is very helpful to many as a way to reduce costs and is available everywhere.

But that savings comes at a price as you are limited in your medical options as your
health care is directed by your HMO.

It is actually a cleverly marketed Republican scheme to begin to privatize Medicare by
enticing recipients with government subsidies that are paid to the insurance companies.
So the tax payers are covering the additional costs that we who chose traditional
Medicare must still pay. I chose to pay the additional costs to support the traditional
Medicare and to have more health care freedom. I understand that not everyone will
or can afford to make that choice, but know what the real price and intent is.

[Hoyt]

52. A little over 30% of Medicare beneficiaries voluntarily choose Medicare Advantage because they don't

have to shell out any, or not as much, for coinsurance, deductibles, drugs, etc.

Those 30% find the restrictions -- like smaller doctor panels -- worth it.

With that said, I currently have traditional Medicare. I previously had Medicare Advantage through Kaiser and liked it. I moved last year and Kaiser doesn't have a program here. Of course, I don't care what my doctors are like as long as they are competent. So I don't need a wide choice. Point is, I'm fine with Medicare Advantage as long as people have a choice. If they need to choose from more docs, that's fine.

[Big Blue Marble]

60. It really does depend on the quality of the HMO.

In some parts of the country, they maybe better than others. I know that when
my MIL was in a health crisis and needed nursing care they forced her into a less
than desirable nursing home. She was not able to make the choice herself. This
choice significantly reduced her quality of life and ultimately shortened her life.


Even when it works fairly well on a micro level, it is important to understand the macro
implications and the Republican agenda to privatize Medicare, because that is what
Avantage Care is privatized Medicare.

[Hoyt]

62. If it helps people who can't afford a $150/$200 month supplement and drug plan,

I'm all for it, as long as it's not forced upon people. And it is not.

Truthfully, there aren't many nursing homes that are desirable, unless you have lots of money and are in an assisted living vs. long-term care.

Nursing home care is really a national disgrace almost anywhere.

[stopbush]

86. We have been with Kaiser Permanente since 2005

It’s an HMO. Continuing with them on Medicare as of this year made sense to us.

[hedda_foil]

48. You have a Medicare Advantage plan. It's different from Supplemental.

[Ohiogal]

29. I would like to know

what kind of job you had where you didn't have to pay a penny, even in co-pays or premiums. Wow.

[Peacetrain]

31. It was a benefit...

hubby and I worked for different places and we were single recipients that way from the respective insurance compainies.. a lot of places used to.. (I have been retired for a while) would cover the insurance premium for a single recipient.. where you got hit was the family plan

[Voltaire2]

106. Must have been quite a while ago.

Average employee costs are around 6000 for premiums and another 2500 for out of pocket costs. The employee share of health insurance costs has been steadily increasing.

[drray23]

152. I have similar benefits right now.

No deductible. I do have a copay but i only pay $160.00 per month fo a family plan including dental and vision. my employer pays several times that on my behalf.

[ProfessorPlum]

32. What Yavin4 said above - to say "I never paid a penny" is a bizarre lie

most employers tell you exactly what you are paying for your employment-based healthcare coverage, and it comes directly out of your paycheck, and it is in most cases _much_ more expensive than Medicare (having no CEOs or shareholders and with a very tiny overhead cost).

Imagine all of the money collected by employers to pay for healthcare, all of the premiums and deductables (and Medicare and Medicaid taxes) and every other dollar funneled into our healthcare system (and siphoned off by greedheads). Now, cut that pile of money in half, and that is what we would have to pay for a system that would give all of us better medical outcomes.

So worth it.

[Peacetrain]

33. See post above you..

[ProfessorPlum]

43. so, they never told you what you were paying for it

[YOHABLO]

34. You're absolutely right. Regular Medicare pushes people to buy supplemental ins.

This is the hand out to the insurance companies I never understood. With Medicare, we still have co-pays and deductibles. In order to get vision care, dental care, hearing care, we have to buy a supplemental plan, which is hard for some of us to afford. Some are just over 100 dollars from meeting state poverty guidelines for Medicaid eligibility which would alleviate some of these out of pocket costs . If we want Medicare for all we need to improve it. Doctors should be required by law to see Medicare patients.

[brooklynite]

36. My (Govt) retirement has free health insurance for me and my spouse...

.,..when Medicare kicks in, it acts as the secondary provider.

[Turin_C3PO]

42. Medicaid for all would be ideal.

I’m on Medicaid and have virtually no bills and I have an expensive disease, cystic fibrosis.

[Kahuna7]

49. Right. Medicare for all would have to entirely revamp the

current Medicare system, as it is not designed to care for every age group and all medical costs. My opinion in M4A is no more than a bumber sticker.

[comradebillyboy]

96. Exactly so...

[Kaleva]

55. it is free in the sense that the Part B premiums are paid by others and not by you

[Honeycombe8]

57. I pay about $266 for Part B + Medigap Plan G + Part D drug plan combined. My ACA was $958...

With my Medicare choices for a total of $266/mo., All but the Part B deductible (about $183?) of my covered expenses are taken care of. A huge network of care providers & most pharmacies in my area accept it.

My individual ACA policy was about $958/mo. for an HMO (HMOs are the lowest kind of policy you can have) with a deductible of $4,500 to $6,000 (depending on the year). The number of care providers who would take it were minimal. In fact, in Dallas I couldn't find one anywhere near me, despite the fact that I lived within spittin' distance of about 5 hospital and large care provider centers. I managed to have one preventive exam in the five years I had an individual policy with the ACA. (Despite preventive exams being supposedly free, I had to pay about $66. Blue Cross.) I got a subsidy of varying amounts through the years, or I wouldn't have been able to pay for it.

I worked for decades and paid taxes into Medicare. I have tried to live a lifestyle where I would stay healthy (this will affect cost of SOME Medicare plans).

I am so glad that I was finally able to get Medicare. Medigap is the way to go, if a person can afford it. Mine is about $115/mo (part of the $266). United Healthcare (better than never-again Blue Cross).

[Celerity]

93. so (given a 6000 dollar annual deductible) you had to pay $17,500 or so per year??

Was that just for you or for your whole family (if you have one) and did that include all prescription drug costs?

That is crazy high (NOT doubting you at all, I know you are 100% upfront, completely). I am just shocked that your ACA plan was so expensive, especially if it was only for you personally and even worse if pharma wasn't included.

I remember reading a post last year (I so wish I had bookmarked it) by a fellow Californian, not much older than me (I think they were 28, and I was 22 then) who said they were an independent contractor and because they went slightly over the $52,000 AGI limit (it might have been 55K) and thus lost all subsidies for their ACA pan, they would have had to pay almost 1500 USD a month and had some insane 8000 USD or more deductible.

The system sure seems so broken here, and TBH, I do not see even a public option passing. The same insurance lobbyists who spent over $100,000,000 (and that was just one group, and insurance firms only, it doesn't count big pharma, big medical, etc etc) in the last 14 months (prior to its passage) trying to stop the ACA are vowing to do the same with the public option. I have posted on that multiple times in the past.

[Honeycombe8]

118. Yes, the premiums were about $12k a year the last couple of years.

But I got a subsidy all years, altho the subsidy changed. If it weren't for that, I wouldn't have been able to pay for it and have any insurance, since we couldn't buy short term plans any more, and I didn't qualify for Medicaid.

That policy was just for me. I was about 59, when I first got it. The one age group the ins. cos. are allowed to charge more for in the ACA is older insureds. It didn't start out that high, though. It started out high for the time, but it skyrocketed after that.

Yes, it was crazy high. Let me tell me you...I spent over 100 hours that first year poring through the plans trying to find something that I could afford and trying to find a doctor who would take it. I cried many tears when I realized the fix I was in. It wasn't fair. I had worked hard all my life, since a teenager. I paid my taxes, paid off my car and house, didn't buy electronics or go on vacations. I paid my dues, to end up not being able to afford basic health care was something I couldn't fathom. If it hadn't been for the subsidy, there's no way I could have afforded it, and we no longer were allowed to buy any sort of limited plan so we'd have something (like a catastrophic plan).

So I know first hand how important it is for people to have access to at least basic health care. It should NOT be that a person can be productive, work hard for decades, not have debt, play by the rules, and end up not being able to get basic health care. That's shameful in a wealthy country like ours.

I fell into a group that slipped through the cracks. Also, the ins. cos. were gaming the system.

Now people can buy a short term plan, to help bridge a gap. That helps, IMO, when you're desperate to have some protection for an injury, if you can't afford the ACA.

Medicare is an excellent program for seniors. Health care when you're 65 helps prevent more serious care needed when you're older. The same is true for health care for young people. Having health care when you're young helps ensure you won't end up with serious conditions later.

[Celerity]

123. thanks so much for the reply

I look at the rates of increase in healthcare costs (at every level, including for-profit private insurance, pharma, etc) and there is almost no chance this system can be maintained in its current form (and I will even go back to the quasi-halcyon pre-Trump days when making this statement, as the rate increases across the board were still backed into the cake.) Much like our US tertiary education system, it is utterly unsustainable.

I have 2 and a half years left to be on my father's policy here. We will do a cost/benefit analysis when that comes to an end, and we may opt to go back to the EU (if we have not already, although Brexit is a nightmare complication there as well) if it makes economic sense. I own my own little private firm on the side atm, and have no other avenue to an employer-sponsored plan atm (that can easily change over the next 3 years however). That said, I really do not want to get locked into a placement that I only work at to maintain health insurance. I cannot see my options ever getting to that point, thankfully.

I am so happy for you that you made it to Medicare, and not just for that reason alone, but because you are healthy!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

59. Medicare is expensive because it covers an older group of people

that requires more, and more expensive, care. A system that included the entire (younger, healthier) population should be less expensive, per person, than traditional Medicare.

[Hoyt]

70. Somewhat less expensive, yes. A lot less expensive, questionable because we are adding in a lot

of additional costs in the plans being promised by some candidates, like covering 20 million un-/under-insured, coinsurance/deductibles, people want dental and vision, etc. These are good things and people need them, but it's going to cost.

Plus, a lot of the savings being bandied around, aren't likely to materialize. I've been hearing about projections of administrative savings, utilization savings, etc., since 1977 when I worked for a state Medicaid agency. Haven't seen that happen yet.

[TexasBushwhacker]

74. Exactly. Expanding the risk pool lowers the cost per person

Not to mention, when EVERYONE is covered, chronic illnesses like diabetes are better managed and ERs aren't used for primary care by the uninsured.

[sabrams]

63. Your monthly premiums don't have to cost that much.

I don't know what state you are in, but you should shop around this fall for a different supplement plan and company.
You most likely have a Plan F now, so shop other companies for better rates. Also, look at a Plan G or even Plan N.
You still have to pay the Part B premium, but you should not have to spend $300/month on a supplement.

[KSNY]

64. Here is a link to an explanation on how it works....

Btw, you have been very fortunate to have had good coverage via your employer. Most people don't....

[tymorial]

68. Excellent. I have been posting about this for a while now.

So many have no idea that supplementary insurance is certainly necessary now given the cost of healthcare. I believe that we will have universal healthcare at some point but calling it medicare for all is a piss poor descriptor. To replace our current system with straight medicare would be disastrous.

[left-of-center2012]

69. I pay nothing for Medicare

I use a Medicare Advantage Plan,
and my state pays the $135 a month deductible from Social Security.

I got my insurance through a "health insurance broker" who deals in many health plans and companies.
He put the info before me and I made the decision.

Folks need to do the research.

[moniss]

71. Pure bunk

The Medicare part B premium for all recipients whose individual gross income for 2017 was below $85,000.00 (170,00 for joint) for 2019 is $135.50 per month. It goes up slightly from there but in order to get near your $300.00 mark you would have to have income over $107,000 per year (214,000 joint) and if you do I'm not crying for you having to pay the $270.90 per month premium. Medicare supplemental policies are offered by private insurance companies to cover deductibles etc. that Medicare doesn't pay. That cost is also controlled and depending on the features you choose for your plan can run from a minimal cost per month to over $250.00 per month. You can also get Part D to cover drug costs and this is also through private insurers and mine runs $26.80 per month. Medicare is not medically underwritten and you do not pay more based on your health. Your supplemental plan with an insurance company can be underwritten medically only if you were foolish enough not to sign up during your first 6 month eligibility period when you turned 65. You may also have to pay a late enrollment penalty to Medicare. During that initial eligibility period you cannot be medically underwritten and you cannot be charged more or be denied coverage. There is also premium assistance for your Medicare premiums based on your income. You are not taking into account that your "free" health insurance at work was actually money that could have been paid to you in wages/salary but instead paid for a benefit that you mistakenly thought was not costing you anything. You would also have to compare your coverages etc. between both your employer policy and Medicare in order to determine if you are looking at apples to apples or not. Also what may have been a very desirable and useful benefit to someone in their 30's may be less important than something else to someone in the 60's. So comparing plans that way can require more than just a glance or two. Also you may well be attributing to Medicare what is actually a private insurance company plan under the heading of Medicare Advantage. They aren't the same thing precisely. If your point is that Medicare for all would be horribly expensive for everyone then you do not understand the concept of the risk pool/versus cost that is at the heart of all insurance of any kind. If more younger and healthier people come in to the plan paying premiums while incurring fewer/less costly claims then the premiums go down because you are spreading the total claims over a much larger pool of premium payers. This allows many improvements to the program and better health outcomes as a result. I encourage people to call Medicare directly to get answers to questions. I get through in usually less than 10 minutes. Insurance companies and their agents are not necessarily going to act in your best interests. That shouldn't unfortunately be a new concept for anybody that has lived to be 65. There is also usually help available from each state to answer questions. Good luck and as Red Green says "We're all in this together."

[Locrian]

83. really good post -but can you add some line returns? - n/t

just hate to see all the good stuff not read because it's so hard to read

[moniss]

114. thanks

for the tip. I tend to run on like a madman at the keyboard. Hey maybe that's an album title. Maybe "Madman Across the Keyboard" .

[Hamlette]

115. I would add

the person mentioned in the op who pays $400 in Medicare must have made over $400,000 per year so yes, not crying a river.

And it is based on your income as much as 2 years ago. I.e., you premium for 2019 is based on your household income in 2017 (or maybe 2016??). So, the first couple of years might be higher so save a bit for that.

My husband and I pay about $1,000 per month between us for Medicare, supplemental and drug coverage. BUT hubby is still working nearly full time as a banking lawyer and I worked for the state for nearly 30 years and have a pension. I have no complaints.

I would add, when I worked for the state I LOVED my health insurance coverage even though I payed co-payments, 20% not covered by insurance and a premium which was taken out of my paycheck. Medicare is thousands of times better. Hubby had a small heart attack well over a year ago and I got a new knee 10 months ago and we have never received a bill for any of it. Plus, since all providers know how it works, there are never any questions. My parents loved it too and my Dad went through an expensive few years.

You will incur 95% of your lifetime medical care/bills in the last few years of life. I'm so glad to live in a country that at least provides that.

I will say that I have mixed feelings about the Koch brothers receiving Medicare. Let them eat cake.

[Indygram]

75. I like Medicare for America but NOT single payer

Having Medicaid as a public option would suit me just fine as well. Just don't take away my employer paid insurance or you cause me harm and force me to reconsider giving you my vote in the future.

[peggysue2]

78. Right on the mark, Peacetrain

Too many write and push the idea that Medicare is free. My husband retired 2 years ago and as you said: going from company shared cost health insurance--part of his benefit package--to Medicare was not a free ticket to ride. The costs were partially paid through our payroll deductions over the course of our working history, but we still pay the monthly fee + supplemental + pharmaceutical + dental + vision fees. Btw, our dental and vision coverage is a lot less than we were accustomed to prior to retirement.

I tend to go back to the effort in Vermont and Governor Shumlin's valiant attempt to get a Medicare4All package through at the state level. You can't say he and his team did not try their best in an environment where public support was strong and where they were only dealing with one provider (Blue Cross/Blue Shield, I understand). Yet despite all the effort, Green Mountain Care failed to launch.

Why?

Despite the time and energy, they simply could not get the numbers to work. To provide the expanded care they wanted meant onerous tax increases for residents and businesses alike. To reduce the tax burden meant reducing basic coverage. The math simply didn't add up. For most Americans living on a month-to-month basis, the long-term benefit argument falls short. In addition, Americans hate taxes; we fought a damn revolution over them. Which is why big tax increases are rarely mentioned.

I would really like to see Medicare expanded to 50-55 year olds and see how the program plays outs, make adjustments and tweaks along the way. It will also give us time to rein in costs on medical care itself and on prescription drugs. Not an easy measure for sure but it's the big takeaway from Shumlin's effort: until basic costs are managed and regulated, Medicare4All is DOA.

[calguy]

80. Medicare pay not be free, but it's sure cheap

After my $135 for Part B, I pay $120 a month for supplemental insurance that pays for everything not paid by Medicare. $18 a month for prescription coverage. So for roughly $275 a month everything is covered. Compare that with what a much younger person pays monthly, I'm more than happy with my premiums.

[Hoyt]

81. You are forgetting about the Medicare tax you and your employer paid for decades, and taxes paid by

younger folks that go toward our care.

If you were paying a full premium for a Medicare plan -- without any insurance company profits, etc. -- I bet you'd be paying $1200 month or more, and that assumes you are in reasonable health.

Glad to have it, but it sure ain't cheap when you look at the full cost.

[calguy]

134. I'm not forgetting that

The money we paid into it all our lives is allowing us to pay very reasonable premiums now. I think it works great. Can you imagine how high our premiums would be without Medicare? At our age? Socialism at its best.

[JGug1]

82. Paying $302/month for Medicare

This is what Medicare costs:
It may be that you didn't pay into Medicare enough quarters. Also, Medicare is more expensive if you earn enough money, you will also have to pay something. Notice that it says that "MOST PEOPLE DON'T PAY A MONTHLY PREMIUM FOR PART A." So, while you are paying something, you either don't know why or you are intentionally not telling the whole story. I have both Medicare and a Supplemental plan. I pay about $400 total and essentially everything is covered. I earn enough that I don't need the freebee.


Medicare costs at a glance
Listed below are basic costs for people with Medicare. If you want to see and compare costs for specific health care plans, visit the Medicare Plan Finder.

For specific cost information (like whether you've met your deductible, how much you'll pay for an item or service you got, or the status of a claim), visit MyMedicare.gov.

Find out if Medicare covers a specific test, item or service that's not listed under the detailed Medicare cost information section of this page.

2019 costs at a glance
Part A premium Most people don't pay a monthly premium for Part A (sometimes called "premium-free Part A&quot . If you buy Part A, you'll pay up to $437 each month. If you paid Medicare taxes for less than 30 quarters, the standard Part A premium is $437. If you paid Medicare taxes for 30-39 quarters, the standard Part A premium is $240.
Part A hospital inpatient deductible and coinsurance You pay:
$1,364 deductible for each benefit period
Days 1-60: $0 coinsurance for each benefit period
Days 61-90: $341 coinsurance per day of each benefit period
Days 91 and beyond: $682 coinsurance per each "lifetime reserve day" after day 90 for each benefit period (up to 60 days over your lifetime)
Beyond lifetime reserve days: all costs
Part B premium The standard Part B premium amount is $135.50 (or higher depending on your income).
Part B deductible and coinsurance $185 per year. After your deductible is met, you typically pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount for most doctor services (including most doctor services while you're a hospital inpatient), outpatient therapy, and durable medical equipment (dme)
Part C premium
The Part C monthly premium varies by plan.
Compare costs for specific Part C plans.
Part D premium
The Part D monthly premium varies by plan (higher-income consumers may pay more).
Compare costs for specific Part D

[Peacetrain]

85. Never mind

[emmaverybo]

87. I really like what I have, but would like everyone to be covered. For that, I won't complain about

paying more taxes. But I hate to give up my situation. I am on a state retirement plan. I paid into my pension and to Medicare. Since I turned 65, I got Medicare at 135 per month, but that payment out of my social security gets reimbursed to add to my small pension—small because stupidly I did not pay more than the mandatory in.
I pay no premium for the additional coverage through United Health Care, not the best, but not the worse, and I could choose a blue anthem plan that’s better.
I pay minimal costs for medications. My copay is 10.00 for most services. I have never been turned down for an expensive diagnostic. I am 100 percent covered for hospital. I have no deductible just a cap on how much out of pocket drug costs I pay per year.
My daughter’s extremely and chronically ill partner is covered by Medicaid. She has been seen at some of the best research hospitals by some of the best specialists. And she has 40 hours a week paid home health aide and visiting nurse a few hours a week.
I am thinking that Medicaid is a lot better for her than Medicare4All is going to be. And for me, as for others either with good retirement health coverage or affordable employer covered plans, how will Medicare4All work? Like the VA? Like the NHS currently going broke in the UK with deplorable
emergency conditions, increasing privatization, huge wait times to start cancer treatments, for cervical cancer screening, for hip replacements, to see a PCP?
So I think voters, who believe they will sacrifice what they now have, and unlike me might not even care about the millions of uninsured, might find Medicare4All a deal breaker.
PS I have dental for 10 dollars a month but it is so awful I pay out of pocket, and vision for no dollars, which does help.
People like choice. How can we get to universal health care and still offer choice? And how do we insure that low income people getting good services from Medicaid don’t end up in facilities or with “poor people’s” hospitals and doctors? UK doctors are fleeing the service. Lesser trained and qualified doctors are becoming the norm.

[LiberalArkie]

88. Yes it is expensive.. I have the advantage plan and it all runs me about $500 a month

and I never get sick...

However if it was for everyone and Medicare could force the price of medicine like the rest of the world does and include dental and vision in it, I would bet our prices would fall.

[people]

89. Medicare for all . . .

Obviously, if a system of medicare for all was adopted that system would not be the exact same thing as medicare is now. For example. several candidates have said that would need to cover dental, prescription drugs, hearing aides, etc. And, it's wonderful that you had great employer-provided health insurance, but I assume your salary or wages paid for that coverage -- no doubt your wages or salary were lower than they otherwise would have been in order to pay for your healthcare benefits.

[MineralMan]

90. There are options to the standard Medicare supplement.

I pay $79/month, plus my deduction from Medicare for Part B. It's an Advantage HMO plan. It includes prescriptions coverage and some minor vision and hearing coverage which I don't need. My prescriptions are zero co-pay, because all are Tier 1 generics. I do pay a $10 copay for doctor visits, but I normally only see my doctor once a year for the free Medicare wellness check.

I don't have any serious health concerns at 73. I take a couple of blood pressure meds and a statin. I see the same doctor I've been seeing for 15 years, since I chose a plan that has my doctor's multi-specialty clinic as a network provider.

My wife who is only 62, and self-employed, pays almost $800/month for her ACA plan. We do get a tax credit on that, due to our income.

It's worth investigating all options during the open enrollment period each year and choose a plan that works for you at the right price.

[Peacetrain]

95. It is good re-evalute yearly.. and then some of us have to go to

Rochester quite often, and I have to have the supplemental that will cover that, that is awseome you can use the HMO portion..).. I finally realized when a few were putting up their thoughts on what I pay and how I should research it.. that there is a good chance they are looking at it through the theoretical and not have had to deal with it on the practical level... but that was never the point of my op.. its that after a conversation with a friend who is getting ready to retire today.. and the subject of MFA came up.. I realized that people who have not had to deal with the realities of medicare, are working under the assumption that those of us retired are not paying for our health insurance any more..

[MineralMan]

105. Got it.

What I don't understand is why nobody's talking about employers paying for MFA as they do now for private insurance. I've been self-employed since 1974, so I've had to pay all along. I pay a lot less now than before Medicare. There's no 20% copay, either, like there was with my earlier insurance.

Employers pay now. The can continue paying. Single payer is cheaper.

Nothing else makes any sense.

[Peacetrain]

110. I find it confusing.. so you know many also do..

I wish there was one place to pay.. if I go outside my network, I can never get back in.. I am out there forever.. and there are benefits to being with the network I retired out of.. .I pay more,

[Mike Nelson]

92. I wish some of the...

… Democratic candidates would explain it better... health are is not free. Neither is college. They should be explaining that we, as a society, are going to pay for public health care... we will expand public education past high school... it's in the public interest. We can spend less on war - get the USA out of the war business...

[Doreen]

97. I do not understand how it actually works

but I am on Medicare/United Health Care. I do not pay a premium but I do have to pay out of pocket co-pay. Dental and visual is included. I got it a little more than 2 years ago when the medicare man came to my low income complex. I never thought I was going to get new glasses or needed dental work because my Medicare previously only took care of emergencies and you had to have your regular doctor send you.

As long as I stay under a certain amount I do not have a co-pay for dental. I had to get it in done in a two year span to not go over my yearly given amount but I got all of the dental work I needed without any co-pay. The only cost for my glasses was the cost for bifocals ( without bifocals I would not have had to pay ) and frames. I was even able to see a dermatologist which I could never had done with regular Medicare.

I figured I better get it done before this insurance goes away. I do not take it for granted and am making use of it as much as possible before/in case/ when they take it away. I appreciate it very much.

This seems closer to what we should all have. Maybe not exactly but close.

[seta1950]

99. I disagree

My neighbor paid $1000 a month just for her now she’s on Medicare and it’s only $200 and that’s great , my point is not too many people have the kind of insurance where they don’t pay anything

[Bradshaw3]

103. Medicare and the supplemental are better than any employer insurance I ever had

Unless there is a long-term catastrophic condition I know I will not be bankrupted, like would happen with other insursance.

[chillfactor]

107. sorry but i have been on Medicare for 11 years

and love it. Never pay out of pocket and my prescriptions are for $1.70-$5.00 each and I am on 6 meds. No idea what supplement you have but sounds like you are being taken for a ride.

[Kurt V.]

111. You've been pretty fortunate. i pay more that thru my employer's insurance.

[OMGWTF]

112. Eighteen months until I'm 65 and I can't wait for Medicare!

Right now I'm paying $15,000 a year before my shit insurance covers anything other than a flu shot and a physical every TWO years. Fk yeah, I want Medicare!!

[Peacetrain]

117. I am not saying Medicare is not good.. its very good.. but it only

covers 80% of your needs.. we pay basically 12,000 a year for both of us together on oursupplemental, part d and b added in and dental etc.. its a little stiff

[Staph]

116. I went on Medicare in January,

and I am so thankful to be paying about the same amount as you, about $300 a month (though I don't have dental).

Last year, I paid for my own health insurance, on the Exchange. I paid $1,387 per month. No dental. No vision. A fight with Blue Cross for every little thing. (They refused to pay for a camera pill when I had anemia with no obvious cause. I'd had an endoscopy and colonoscopy, but nothing found. Because they denied the camera pill, over the next four months I ended up in the hospital three more times, for nearly four weeks total, more than ten units of blood, and a middle-of-the-night ambulance ride. I nearly died, because Blue Cross wouldn't pay for a $1000 camera pill. I hate them!)

I love Medicare!

[Peacetrain]

119. I did a quick add of our expenses on Medicare

and hubby and I pay about 500 each a month (together a 1000) our part b 135, supplemental 302 and I think his is 250.. both do delta so that is 29 each or 58 together part D 90 for hubby..mine is included in my supplemental..so it adds up for us.. but we get very good care.. and thank GOD our Doctors take medicare...

[lark]

124. I dropped my Supplemental as I didn't need that much coverage.

I went to a dr. like twice last year, even my sciatica hadn't flared up in over a year so I switched to a HMO. I save over $300/mo. now compared to then. However, this year I had 2 head traumas and am now in danger of being permanently paralyzed and it's taken me 5 months to do what would have taken 2 months at the most if I had my old Supplement. HMO's are hard to deal with, especially when you have an urgent condition, I've been on the phone a ton - but on the other hand, there's $1800 I haven't had to spend.

No Medicare isn't free, but private insurance is way more expensive. I had to pay $400/mo. for my husband and my medical care, dental and vision policies through my work and we also had a $3000 deductible. The out of pocket was also $3000, so that was great for the years when my husband had a hospital stay.

Anyway, my point is you always have to plan and there are always tradeoffs - whether it's retirement or working life or whatever. Also, you can make the best plans, but life happens and sometimes you are unexpectedly in a shit storm and just trying to survive. Sadly, this is much more likely to happen as you age, so good luck to us all.

[MadDAsHell]

125. "Medicare for all" works if its spending doubles.

My sister works in a specialty nursing facility and Medicare's daily reimbursement rate is like half of the facility's actual daily cost of providing the care. The only reason they can afford to take even the occasional Medicare patient is that their commercial payers pay slightly above cost and create some margin.

If every patient they had was Medicare they would finish each year tens of millions in the hole, instead of barely breaking even like they do now.

"Medicare for All" is a great theoretical idea but really only a bumper sticker slogan until someone can actually show math that doesn't bankrupt half of providers.

[greymattermom]

127. Your employer was paying for that insurance.

It was never free.

[doc03]

128. I agree I pay $135.50 for Medicare and $125

for Medicare advantage plan. A friend of mine had a $1.8
million hospital bill. If not for his insurance he would pay 20% of that. That is not free.

[guillaumeb]

131. These flaws were designed into the program.

And they can be designed out if there is the political will.

Politicians know that the health insurance industry gives millions in bribes, or contributions if you prefer, so that the current, profit based system, continues.

[Freethinker65]

132. I would gladly pay 500+/month to buy into Medicare and at an earlier age

And as others have pointed out, your employee provided insurance when you were working was never free. Your employer paid for the coverage.

Even my right wing in-laws admit they were much better off with Medicare than any age adjusted alternative when they reached eligibility.

[shanny]

135. You're right. Medicare needs to be much better.

Btw, your employer coverage wasn't "free", it was part of your compensation. And it ried you to your job.

[myohmy2]

142. we need...

...to shore up Social Security and Medicare not weaken it with private sector crap...

...Medicare should be made affordable by all and Social Security should be made a livable income...

...the money is right there in the pockets of the 1%...they been stealing it from us for decades...

...we need to stop voting for their candidates and elect people who will represent us and our interests...

...solidarity forever...

[RazBerryBeret]

151. This story has been making the rounds,

if you haven't seen it, this may help you realize what is possible, what other countries can achieve and what we need to aspire to: https://www.dailydot.com/irl/breast-lump-us-healthcare/

[brush]

153. Didn't you have deductions from your paycheck while working for healthcare?

I sure did. And then there was the ever-increasing deductibles before the healthcare company from work would start paying.

Believe me, healthcare wasn't free while working.

[TCJ70]

155. I pay more than 3x that for insurance through my work currently.

I’d gladly pay $302 a month any day for insurance. Increase it to $500 a month And I still wouldn’t complain.

[Hortensis]

163. But don't forget, we ALREADY paid for Medicare for decades,

as you also are, reportedly currently 1.45% every pay period. Money we didn't get to invest.
Plus your employer pays another 1.45%.
Plus there's an additional withholding rate of 0.9% that makes my eyes cross to read about.
Plus there is no wage limit -- it's assessed against all wages.

And like the OP's, our Medicare applies to one person and one person only. No family rates or coverage.

Not saying we're not glad to have it, but the best thing about it isn't the rate (I paid roughly the same as for parts A & B under the ACA and got similar coverages plus basic preventive meds. But the best part of it is that coverage can't be denied, and the program is not in danger of closing down the way insurance companies do. Of course, the Republicans plan to do exactly that - repeal Medicare, but let's assume that long-held dream will again be stopped.

[SMC22307]

164. Are you saying you pay a total of $437.50 for Part B and a supplemental plan?

Or a total of $302 with the $135.50 part of that amount?

$29/month for dental is cheap.

[area51]

166. Please take a look at the proposals for Medicare for All and PNHP's FAQ

The proposals have more information. Those who support M4A are aware that current Medicare has problems and have addressed that.