Medicare Discussion

[esmith]

I would like to discuss Romney’s Medicare Plan because it is different than what Obama is presenting, which is no change.
Now we all should know that Romney’s Medicare Plan is as follows:
1. No change to the plan for anyone 55 and older. This is the same as Obama. We will disregard the speculation that one plan would or would not raise cost to those 55 and over since it is speculation.
2. For those that are 54 and younger there is two choices..
a. stay on the original plan
b. go on a voucher plan where you would purchase your own health care

There are basically two Medicare Plans; A basically doesn’t cost you anything if you are on Social Security or Railroad Retirement and covers various medical cost see Part A Coverage Part B at the present time cost $99.90 a month and is scheduled to go up every year. It is projected to cost $161.20 by 2021 see page 229 of Projected Medicare Premiums . Now my main issue with Part B premiums is that they cost the same for everyone no matter if you are receiving $500 or $2500 in Social Security. It also does not take into account you total annual income. In other words it is not means tested. Which Romney says he wants to do; I don’t know what Obama wants to do.

Now let’s visit Romney’s voucher plan. Let’s assume that the Romney plan is in effect and I am about to turn 65. There is only the two of us and both of us will be on social security. Let’s also assume you can buy health insurance over state lines (Romney supports this). I and my spouse have been taking very good care of ourselves and only visit the doctor once a year for a physical. (In fact I am 70 years old visit the doctor once a year and still exercise 6 days a week , strenuous cardiovascular and strength regime). We have invested our money wisely and with have a fairly decent retirement income, our home is paid off and we buy a new car maybe once every 10 years. In other words we are living comfortably but certainly not considered well-off. Now, I know if we take Medicare Part B we will have to have a supplemental health care plan. Now, we are willing to pay X number of dollars out of our own pocket for annual physicals and minor health issues including vaccines. We find a private insurance plan that covers physicals, immunizations, minor health issues, and catastrophic medical problems for both of us with a $x.xx deductible. The premiums are less than Medicare Part B plus a supplemental plan. Wouldn’t we be better off taking the voucher plan?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I would like to discuss Romney’s Medicare Plan because it is different than what Obama is presenting, which is no change.
Now we all should know that Romney’s Medicare Plan is as follows:
1. No change to the plan for anyone 55 and older. This is the same as Obama. We will disregard the speculation that one plan would or would not raise cost to those 55 and over since it is speculation.
2. For those that are 54 and younger there is two choices..
a. stay on the original plan
b. go on a voucher plan where you would purchase your own health care

There are basically two Medicare Plans; A basically doesn’t cost you anything if you are on Social Security or Railroad Retirement and covers various medical cost see Part A Coverage Part B at the present time cost $99.90 a month and is scheduled to go up every year. It is projected to cost $161.20 by 2021 see page 229 of Projected Medicare Premiums . Now my main issue with Part B premiums is that they cost the same for everyone no matter if you are receiving $500 or $2500 in Social Security. It also does not take into account you total annual income. In other words it is not means tested. Which Romney says he wants to do; I don’t know what Obama wants to do.

Now let’s visit Romney’s voucher plan. Let’s assume that the Romney plan is in effect and I am about to turn 65. There is only the two of us and both of us will be on social security. Let’s also assume you can buy health insurance over state lines (Romney supports this). I and my spouse have been taking very good care of ourselves and only visit the doctor once a year for a physical. (In fact I am 70 years old visit the doctor once a year and still exercise 6 days a week , strenuous cardiovascular and strength regime). We have invested our money wisely and with have a fairly decent retirement income, our home is paid off and we buy a new car maybe once every 10 years. In other words we are living comfortably but certainly not considered well-off. Now, I know if we take Medicare Part B we will have to have a supplemental health care plan. Now, we are willing to pay X number of dollars out of our own pocket for annual physicals and minor health issues including vaccines. We find a private insurance plan that covers physicals, immunizations, minor health issues, and catastrophic medical problems for both of us with a $x.xx deductible. The premiums are less than Medicare Part B plus a supplemental plan. Wouldn’t we be better off taking the voucher plan?

NO... because you presuppose these people will be covered if they're under 55 and the vast majority won't because of pre-existing conditions. Now, we know Romney lied in the debate when he said his plan will cover pre-existing conditions because on Letterman a few weeks ago he indicated it wouldn't but after the debate he was corrected by his own staff when they came out and said that his plan doesn't cover pre-existing conditions. The system Obama has in place is based off of Romneycare but it's also similar to the plan Congress members etc. get. The obvious choice is for seniors to keep it like it is because their pre-exisiting conditions are covered and their health benefits have expanded under Obamacare.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

From what I've heard in his speeches and the debate, I thought Romney's medicare plan was "leave it to the states"... no?

Edit: never mind. I forgot the terminology. For a second, I thought Medicare was universal health insurance

 

[Dirty Penguin]

From what I've heard in his speeches and the debate, I thought Romney's medicare plan was "leave it to the states"... no?

Edit: never mind. I forgot the terminology. For a second, I thought Medicare was universal health insurance

In his debate it was a contradictory statement. He says healthcare should be left up to the states...but went on to say he would repeal Obamacare and "replace" it with something else. He also mentioned that "his plan would cover pre-existing conditions"....(we know he lied about this)...

It's double talk. You can't leave healthcare up to the states to handle if you're going on about (your) plan and what it covers.

This should be an eye opener....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxZK0spa1yI

If there's one name to remember concerning Romneycare and Obamacare is (Johnathan Gruber)..!

 

[Alceste]

Is there really any point discussing the particulars of any specific Romney "plan"? Every time he opens his mouth he just makes up a new plan tailor-made to impress his immediate audience, and abandons whatever he said last week to some other audience. He's a bar troll - he'll say whatever you want to hear to get into your pants.

 

[esmith]

NO... because you presuppose these people will be covered if they're under 55 and the vast majority won't because of pre-existing conditions. Now, we know Romney lied in the debate when he said his plan will cover pre-existing conditions because on Letterman a few weeks ago he indicated it wouldn't but after the debate he was corrected by his own staff when they came out and said that his plan doesn't cover pre-existing conditions. The system Obama has in place is based off of Romneycare but it's also similar to the plan Congress members etc. get. The obvious choice is for seniors to keep it like it is because their pre-exisiting conditions are covered and their health benefits have expanded under Obamacare.

From your post will have to assume you do not know what Medicare is. You are talking about health care for people NOT eligible for Medicare. At the present time, you have to be 65 or older and be receiving Social Security. There are other ways you can be eligible, but that is not the point.

 

[esmith]

From what I've heard in his speeches and the debate, I thought Romney's medicare plan was "leave it to the states"... no?

Edit: never mind. I forgot the terminology. For a second, I thought Medicare was universal health insurance

Well, again I see there is total misunderstanding. Romney was talking about Medicaid NOT Medicare when he purposed "leaving it to the States". I sure wish those making comments would get their facts straight before making comments!

 

[esmith]

Is there really any point discussing the particulars of any specific Romney "plan"? Every time he opens his mouth he just makes up a new plan tailor-made to impress his immediate audience, and abandons whatever he said last week to some other audience. He's a bar troll - he'll say whatever you want to hear to get into your pants.

Again total misrepresentation! Romney has NOT changed his position on Medicare!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

From your post will have to assume you do not know what Medicare is. You are talking about health care for people NOT eligible for Medicare. At the present time, you have to be 65 or older and be receiving Social Security. There are other ways you can be eligible, but that is not the point.

I'm addressing the merits of the Romney/Ryan plan on Medicare and you know it. Romney says if you are 55 and younger you will receive a voucher to shop for a health insurance plan. Obviously there's a reason he chose 55 and not 65. So his plan is a stupid one. HE chose 55 not me. But the scenario works with either age. The Romney/Ryan plan doesn't work for the elderly, even those below a certain age, with pre-existing conditions. Currently those receiving coverage with pre-existing conditions, once put on a voucher, can be denied by an insurer because of the repeal of Obamacare and the fact the person having a pre-existeng condition.....And no matter how many times Romney lies and says it does cover (PE)...all we have to do is wait for his puppeteers to come out to retract his statement. As far as Social Security.....their goal (Romney and Ryan) is to privatize that as well....at least (partial privatization)....So I understand your question very well...but their plan is horrible...

 

[esmith]

I'm addressing the merits of the Romney/Ryan plan on Medicare and you know it. Romney says if you are 55 and younger you will receive a voucher to shop for a health insurance plan. Obviously there's a reason he chose 55 and not 65. So his plan is a stupid one. HE chose 55 not me. But the scenario works with either age. The Romney/Ryan plan doesn't work for the elderly, even those below a certain age, with pre-existing conditions. Currently those receiving coverage with pre-existing conditions, once put on a voucher, can be denied by an insurer because of the repeal of Obamacare and the fact the person having a pre-existeng condition.....And no matter how many times Romney lies and says it does cover (PE)...all we have to do is wait for his puppeteers to come out to retract his statement. As far as Social Security.....their goal (Romney and Ryan) is to privatize that as well....at least (partial privatization)....So I understand your question very well...but their plan is horrible...

NO NO NO. Please let me explain, it is obvious that either you misheard or was misinformed. Romney has said that if you are 55 and older you will stay on the old Medicare plan if you are 54 and younger when you turn 65 (or older if they change the eligibility date) you can stay on the OLD (present) plan or go to a Voucher plan. Do you understand now?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Romney has said that if you are 55 and older you will stay on the old Medicare

OK....and right....everyone 55 and older are grandfathered into the current program (no pun intended). The new structure will only affect the next generation of seniors which will be somewhere around 2025-2030.

when you turn 65 (or older if they change the eligibility date) you can stay on the OLD plan or go to a Voucher plan

OK.... So here is where the the problem starts. Under their plan at retirement age you will not qualify for private health insurance if they repeal the ACA and if you have a pre-existing condition. Private insurers will go back to the days when they determined this. They will reinstate the insurance cap.

Financially, if I decide to take the voucher, I'll only have enough to cover a certain portion (to purchase) private health insurance and those living on fixed incomes at this point may not have enough to cover the short fall long term.

The elderly trying to buy health insurance on the free market who will be living on a fixed income with possible pre-existing health conditions is a horrible solution.

The Path to Prosperity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What it appears to do is voucherize Medicare and privatize Medicaid.

 

[Alceste]

Again total misrepresentation! Romney has NOT changed his position on Medicare!

Sure he has. One day people with pre-existing conditions are covered, the next they're not. One day, he's going to restore billions of dollars he (falsely) claims Obama "cut", the next he's promising the block transfer payments he's proposing will be fixed to inflation plus one percent, which is a cut of billions upon billions more than he's claiming Obama is cutting. One day he's implementing proto-Obamacare himself in Massachusetts, the next he's pitching a system where Massachusetts will not be able to operate under the system he put in place.

The man is a walking etch-a-sketch. Luckily for him, republicans seem to have short memories.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The man is a walking etch-a-sketch. Luckily for him, republicans seem to have short memories.

I get the feeling that many don't care as long as they can't vote against Obama and it appears they will be voting against their best interest.

 

[esmith]

OK....and right....everyone 55 and older are grandfathered into the current program (no pun intended). The new structure will only affect the next generation of seniors which will be somewhere around 2025-2030..

That sounds about right give or take a year or two.

OK.... So here is where the the problem starts. Under their plan at retirement age you will not qualify for private health insurance if they repeal the ACA and if you have a pre-existing condition. Private insurers will go back to the days when they determined this. They will reinstate the insurance cap.

Who says that the pre-existing condition will go away if ACA is repealed, I heard repealed and replaced. Doesn't matter anyway,if they do away with the pre-existing clause stay on the original Medicare plan.

Financially, if I decide to take the voucher, I'll only have enough to cover a certain portion (to purchase) private health insurance and those living on fixed incomes at this point may not have enough to cover the short fall long term.

Who says you will not have sufficient funds? If you don't want the voucher plan, choose the original Medicare Plan.

The elderly trying to buy health insurance on the free market who will be living on a fixed income with possible pre-existing health conditions is a horrible solution..

So, if the voucher plan isn't right for you, choose the original Medicare Plan.

The Path to Prosperity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What it appears to do is voucherize Medicare and privatize Medicaid.

Sorry, you have out-of-date data. This is NOT what Romney has purposed. Again Romney says original Medicare or voucher. Block grants to States to run their own Medicaid programs is what Romney is purposing.

 

[esmith]

Sure he has. One day people with pre-existing conditions are covered, the next they're not. One day, he's going to restore billions of dollars he (falsely) claims Obama "cut", the next he's promising the block transfer payments he's proposing will be fixed to inflation plus one percent, which is a cut of billions upon billions more than he's claiming Obama is cutting. One day he's implementing proto-Obamacare himself in Massachusetts, the next he's pitching a system where Massachusetts will not be able to operate under the system he put in place.

The man is a walking etch-a-sketch. Luckily for him, republicans seem to have short memories.

I must have been listing to different source than you. Yes, he did walk back the pre-existing statement he made at the debate, or should I say clarify it. following from Source
“With respect to pre-existing conditions, what Governor Romney has said is for those with continuous coverage, he would continue to make sure that they receive their coverage,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, referring to existing laws which require insurance companies to sell coverage to people who already have insurance, or within 90 days of losing their employer coverage.
Fuzzy math on the $716billion from both candidates.
Now as far as Medicaid block grants to the States. If the States had control over their own Medicaid money, don't you think they have a better idea on what is going on in the system. Also there is information that massive fraud is going on in the Medicaid systems. Copied from Source The response to the admission by Deputy Director for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Penny Thompson, made in September before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), that payments made by the federal government to New York’s state-run development centers were “excessive and unacceptable,” was simple and to the point: those overpayments were “inexcusable” and “exceeded the entire Medicaid budgets of 14 states” and added that “the failure … suggests an institutional failure and a pattern of irresponsible actions that have cost the taxpayers billions.” "The amount, just in New York, is estimated by Issa’s committee to be in excess of $15 billion, equivalent to $1.9 million per patient per year!"
In other words if the taxpayer is footing the bill why bother to investigate. But if you only get so much you have to, or should, have better control of the money.

 

[Alceste]

I must have been listing to different source than you. Yes, he did walk back the pre-existing statement he made at the debate, or should I say clarify it. following from Source
“With respect to pre-existing conditions, what Governor Romney has said is for those with continuous coverage, he would continue to make sure that they receive their coverage,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, referring to existing laws which require insurance companies to sell coverage to people who already have insurance, or within 90 days of losing their employer coverage.
Fuzzy math on the $716billion from both candidates.
Now as far as Medicaid block grants to the States. If the States had control over their own Medicaid money, don't you think they have a better idea on what is going on in the system. Also there is information that massive fraud is going on in the Medicaid systems. Copied from Source The response to the admission by Deputy Director for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Penny Thompson, made in September before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), that payments made by the federal government to New York’s state-run development centers were “excessive and unacceptable,” was simple and to the point: those overpayments were “inexcusable” and “exceeded the entire Medicaid budgets of 14 states” and added that “the failure … suggests an institutional failure and a pattern of irresponsible actions that have cost the taxpayers billions.” "The amount, just in New York, is estimated by Issa’s committee to be in excess of $15 billion, equivalent to $1.9 million per patient per year!"
In other words if the taxpayer is footing the bill why bother to investigate. But if you only get so much you have to, or should, have better control of the money.

Interesting. You linked to an article where the first two paragraphs detail a major Romney lie (or reversal of positions) about pre-existing conditions being covered under his plan when they would not, but the message you've somehow extracted is that they actually WOULD be covered.

Maybe we are reading the same sources, but with different levels of reading comprehension.

 

[esmith]

Interesting. You linked to an article where the first two paragraphs detail a major Romney lie (or reversal of positions) about pre-existing conditions being covered under his plan when they would not, but the message you've somehow extracted is that they actually WOULD be covered.

Maybe we are reading the same sources, but with different levels of reading comprehension.

All I did was basically copy the paragraphs from the article. I think the key word was "continuous" coverage for pre-existing conditions.

 

[Alceste]

All I did was basically copy the paragraphs from the article. I think the key word was "continuous" coverage for pre-existing conditions.

In other words, people with pre-existing conditions are not covered under the Romney-Ryan plan. If they already had insurance, their condition can not have been "pre-existing".

 

[Dirty Penguin]

In other words, people with pre-existing conditions are not covered under the Romney-Ryan plan. If they already had insurance, their condition can not have been "pre-existing".

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ney-on-obamacare-and-pre-existing-conditions/

The above link reveals his position to be way different than when he was on Leno back in late March

[youtube]gCTGJDrHr9w[/youtube]
Romney: You've got a pre-existing condition? Tough. (Leno) - YouTube

Within 6 months he totally flip flopped his position. What I find interesting is that he's talking out of both sides of his neck. He want's to repeal and replace Obamacare but with his own version and allowing this and that...but then turns right around and says the federal government shouldn't be deciding what kind of coverage you get rather it should be handled at the state level......


:faint:

 

[esmith]

The original post was my view on Romney's Medicare plan VS Obama's Medicare plan. When you get through expounding on what you "think" Romney's Medicare plan is. Let's talk Medicare not healthcare.