Medicare fix ideas- long term

And I maintain that this would be the proper role for the general government in not just the realm of senior health insurance, but health insurance in general. You are the person being insured, regardless of where you happen to be when you require health care. Your premium is based upon the likelihood of you needing certain care and the cost of securing that care in the area in which you live. If you split your residency between two states on a consistent basis it would be appropriate for your premium to be based upon the median cost of care in both places, but the policy should cover you wherever you happen to be living when you receive the care regardless of whether the care is routine or emergency care. If the cost is much higher in AZ than in CO, and the reimbursement from the insurance company is the same regardless of where you receive the care, you can make the decision about whether it is worth living in AZ for that winter, but you should still receive the reimbursement regardless of where the care is received.

I would even think that an insurance company could save money in many instances by allowing you to decide where to receive your care. If the cost of the same treatment is significantly less in Colorado than it is in Arizona, you might elect to travel to Colorado for the care if the money was coming out of your own pocket first and the insurance company was simply reimbursing you for the cost of the care you received. That would also encourage the providers in neighboring areas to remain cost competitive and help keep the costs of the care down.

If chemo costs $10K a month in NYC and the same treatment cost only $5k a month in another state, you would travel to the other state to save yourself, and by extension your insurance company, the extra cost of obtaining the care. If enough people did that, the cost of the chemo in NYC would have to decline to keep people from traveling out of state.

You are pretty naive to think any of that is possible....and savings gained from traveling to another state for treatment would be eaten up by travel and living expenses.....really, chemo is minimum 6 months. Even a major surgery can take several weeks of recuperation.

That aside, right now every state has differing regulations for health insurance companies which is part of the issue going from state to state.....who is going to tell the insurance companies they have to cover people who have to move, not just those who may live in two states. If you move from CO to NY....you have to get a whole new policy......and if you have pre-existing conditions you may not be able to get one, so you have to stay put....until....you are eligible for medicare which has to take you. In order for your scenarios to work, I guess the federal government would have to regulate them, and I'm sure you don't want that.

Bottom line, there are no simplistic solutions to health insurance.....but medicare, as it is right now, works better than any health insurance I've ever had. I added a supplement to it and I'm well covered at less than a third of what I use to pay for private insurance. Any politician will be hard pressed to get any senior to give that up. Peace of mind when you are getting older is priceless!

archer wrote: but medicare, as it is right now, works better than any health insurance I've ever had. I added a supplement to it and I'm well covered at less than a third of what I use to pay for private insurance. Any politician will be hard pressed to get any senior to give that up. Peace of mind when you are getting older is priceless!

Medicare may be a good system for it's consumers. For providers and non-participants it flat out sucks. Medical providers must raise their rates on others to cover the losses from providing care to medicare recipients.

Nobody that matters wrote:

archer wrote: but medicare, as it is right now, works better than any health insurance I've ever had. I added a supplement to it and I'm well covered at less than a third of what I use to pay for private insurance. Any politician will be hard pressed to get any senior to give that up. Peace of mind when you are getting older is priceless!

Medicare may be a good system for it's consumers. For providers and non-participants it flat out sucks. Medical providers must raise their rates on others to cover the losses from providing care to medicare recipients.

Yeah.....if I'm a good capitalist I won't care how much it costs others as long as I get mine. You conservatives should love medicare when you are eligible....it's right up your alley!!!!!

archer wrote: Yeah.....if I'm a good capitalist I won't care how much it costs others as long as I get mine. You conservatives should love medicare when you are eligible....it's right up your alley!!!!!

If there's a source of income available, it should be considered.

A true conservative doesn't object to those feeding off the Federal Teat - they object to the existance of the teat in the first place.

Nobody that matters wrote:

archer wrote: Yeah.....if I'm a good capitalist I won't care how much it costs others as long as I get mine. You conservatives should love medicare when you are eligible....it's right up your alley!!!!!

If there's a source of income available, it should be considered.

A true conservative doesn't object to those feeding off the Federal Teat - they object to the existance of the teat in the first place.

I know, they would be happy if we had no federal government and went back to feudal times.

archer wrote:
I know, they would be happy if we had no federal government and went back to feudal times.

Do you really consider gross exaggeration a valid debate tactic, or are you just being sarcastic?

Nobody that matters wrote:

archer wrote:
I know, they would be happy if we had no federal government and went back to feudal times.

Do you really consider gross exaggeration a valid debate tactic, or are you just being sarcastic?

Just utilizing the debate tactics I learned from the conservatives here. Sorry....I really shouldn't stoop to their level, I apologize.

So back on topic, what are the actual fixes?
So far we have raise the payroll tax 0.7%, negotiate drug prices, turn medicare over to the states. Is that the best you got? I'm not optimistic.

Joe wrote: So back on topic, what are the actual fixes?
So far we have raise the payroll tax 0.7%, negotiate drug prices, turn medicare over to the states. Is that the best you got? I'm not optimistic.

You won't like this one, only liberals do, but a nationwide single payer system, or medicare for all, is what I would like to see. Then, like many other nations, one payer would have the clout to negotiate drug prices, medical costs, and medical coverage.