For those behind Obama care, how much can costs go up?

archer wrote: Why do people get so angry at those who don't have car insurance? It is mandated.....and the uninsured motorist causes us all to pay more for our own auto insurance.....yet I don't see any on the right saying we should get rid of mandated auto insurance, that it's unconstitutional. If you are going to say that this is a state issue, then would you be OK with each state mandating that their citizens all have health insurance? Are the state constitutions so different that they can mandate insurance but the feds cannot?

It would be unconstitutional for the federal government to require you to purchase automobile insurance if you don't own a car, and I wouldn't want to be the governor of a state that mandated those without cars purchase insurance either. It is not a foregone conclusion that your decision not to purchase health insurance will result in harm to others. I have health insurance now, but I haven't been to a doctor in at least 3 years, perhaps more. When I was much younger and didn't have health insurance I suffered a cut on my hand that required stitches, which I was able to pay for out of pocket with no problem, therefore no innocent 3rd party suffered a loss because I didn't have health insurance. When I contracted strep throat, I paid the doctor and I paid for the prescription, again, no loss to anyone. I twisted my knee while playing soccer while uninsured. Paid for the doctor, paid for the imaging, paid for the brace - all out of pocket.

I know I've told the story about riding the bus downtown to go to a less expensive doctor with my mother when I was a wee lad. There was a closer doctor, but he charged a lot more, so it was a bus ride to the one downtown for us. That the health insurance my father had for his family through Public Service required the first $2k come out of the family pocket before the insurance picked up anything at all (at a time when my father was pulling down about $10K a year) meant that the insurance company would only be paying claims when something serious happened, such as my ruptured appendix when I was about 14. This also made the consumer price conscious, which contributed to keeping the cost of care low. Doctors providing routine care had to price their services at a level that meant people could afford them without destroying the family budget. That check and balance is long gone now with co-pays. If it would have cost my mom the same to go to the closer doctor, she would never have taken an hour long bus ride with a sick kid, she would have taken me to the closer doctor, no question.

Now, I will admit I was lucky that I didn't need surgery to repair a torn ACL, which might have altered the equation some (and the major reason I reexamined my decision not to purchase health insurance), but this isn't the kind of insurance the government wants to mandate that I buy - something that lets me take care of the small stuff and only exposes the insurance company to risk for the expensive care. The kind they want to force me to buy carries prescription coverages, birth control coverage, yearly wellness exams at no cost to the insured, substance abuse coverage, mental health coverage, pregnancy coverage and a whole host of other things that drive up the cost of the insurance I am forced to purchase. Where is my choice to cover small routine care out of pocket as I did when I was younger in exchange for a significantly lower premium? You won't find that policy under ObamaCare, it doesn't exist.

jmc wrote: I would buy into the Ryan plan if there was an option to pay the actual costs and get medicare as it is now. All the polls show that most Americans want medicare,as I do. Just raise the price to reflect the true cost and if the private sector wants to compete- fine with me. I am all about choice.

The actual cost of Medicare coverage is about $1,000 a month (based on the Ryan plan) since it covers people 65 and over. So only the sickest would buy into it at that price, which would drive Medicare down even faster.

Now you could make adjustments in premiums based on age, but that's not how Medicare works right now. Age doesn't matter as a 65 year old pays the same premium as an 85 year old. With Medicare, income is what matters. Higher income people contribute more to the Medicare payroll tax, and they pay higher premiums as well.

Medicare is supposed to be finaced mainly by the payroll tax. Younger people haven't paid into that tax as much as retired people have. So in theory, younger people who want Medicare should pay a higher premium to cover the payroll tax they haven't paid yet, which is backwards from private insurance. You could stll adjust the premium down based on younger people being in better health, but it gets complicated, and that's not how Medicare works unless you "reinvent" it.

pineinthegrass wrote:

jmc wrote: I would buy into the Ryan plan if there was an option to pay the actual costs and get medicare as it is now. All the polls show that most Americans want medicare,as I do. Just raise the price to reflect the true cost and if the private sector wants to compete- fine with me. I am all about choice.

The actual cost of Medicare coverage is about $1,000 a month (based on the Ryan plan) since it covers people 65 and over. So only the sickest would buy into it at that price, which would drive Medicare down even faster.

Now you could make adjustments in premiums based on age, but that's not how Medicare works right now. Age doesn't matter as a 65 year old pays the same premium as an 85 year old. With Medicare, income is what matters. Higher income people contribute more to the Medicare payroll tax, and they pay higher premiums as well.

Medicare is supposed to be finaced mainly by the payroll tax. Younger people haven't paid into that tax as much as retired people have. So in theory, younger people who want Medicare should pay a higher premium to cover the payroll tax they haven't paid yet, which is backwards from private insurance. You could stll adjust the premium down based on younger people being in better health, but it gets complicated, and that's not how Medicare works unless you "reinvent" it.

I would offer people when they enter the work force what retirement (SSplan) they want. charge the right % ( real cost) and retire like today at 65/66, same with Medicare. If you choose a lower policy then that is what you get. ie: retire at 70 or 72. I feel the same about any investment. I choose a lower return on some of my retirement money in exchange for security -fine.
If you choose to pay the REAL cost then I think we should have that choice. Simple