PDA

View Full Version : How Medicare really works



Robert A Whit
12-19-2012, 09:07 PM
If you guys think Obama care will be bad, let me explain some things you may not know about Medicare and how it works.

I got my report today.

Take the case of your doctor who diagnosed a heart problem keeping up with your health to make sure you don't have the problem again. And he bills $125. And this doctor really works with you and puts valuable time and effort in to the visit. I mean, no 10 minute quickies. You walk out knowing that this doctor is truly trying his best to help you.

Medicare approved $118.09 for the bill. Do you think they paid him that much?

No.

He got paid $94.47.

Me? I got billed $23.47.

Same doctor.

Charged $110.00
Approved by Medicare $80.42
Govt paid $64.10
My part $16.02

See the pattern?

I ask people this question.

Why would doctors put up with this crap and will they still put up with this crap once Obama care kicks in?

This same doctor told me that if Obama won, he plans major changes in his medical practice.

This doctor virtually saved my life. I may lose the doctor. I hope not.

fj1200
12-20-2012, 09:10 AM
Me? I see a pattern of random numbers with no apparent basis in where they came from. But I will say this:

1. Why shouldn't you, or anyone for that matter, have a stake in paying for the medical services you receive?
2. When you give government the power to pay and make the rules, not everyone will like the outcome.

On another note, I think if the government is going to make continual changes to a private doctor's practice they should take away the liability for malpractice.

Kathianne
12-20-2012, 10:20 AM
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2012-12-20-Fiscal%20Cliff-Medicare%20Premiums/id-4f0ec051693048018bae59c599d7cd42


Medicare premiums could rise for many retirees
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (http://example.com/v1/Journalists.svc/By+RICARDO+ALONSO-ZALDIVAR)By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — It's a health care change that President Barack Obama and Republicans both embrace: Expand a current, little-known law so more retirees the government considers well-off are required to pay higher Medicare premiums.


That plan is likely to be part of any budget deal to reduce the overhang of federal debt, raising $20 billion or more over 10 years. It could come as a shock to many seniors who will have to pay the higher premiums even though they consider themselves solidly middle-class, and by no means wealthy.


That's what happened to Tom James. He and his wife recently got an official notice that they will have to start paying more for Medicare next year, about $1,000 for the two of them. James is among the 5 percent of beneficiaries currently facing higher "income-related" premiums. If the budget change goes through, that number will grow to 25 percent.


"I was blindsided," said James, a retired bank examiner who lives near Philadelphia. "The camel has got his nose in the tent now, and the question is how far do they want to go with that?"


The idea is to continue broadening the reach of income-based Medicare premiums introduced under former President George W. Bush and later expanded by Obama's health care law.
How would it work?

...

fj1200
12-20-2012, 10:50 AM
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2012-12-20-Fiscal%20Cliff-Medicare%20Premiums/id-4f0ec051693048018bae59c599d7cd42

Oh what a tangled web...


"I think wealth is in the eye of the beholder," said Tricia Neuman, a Medicare expert with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "This premium affects people with incomes starting at $85,000, but in the discussion over taxes $85,000 is not generally considered high income."

AARP says hiking the premium would be equivalent to a tax.

"This is a payment to the federal government based on your income, and that is a form of a tax," said David Certner, legislative policy director for the older people's lobby.
Not so, says Bixby. Even the wealthiest beneficiaries still get some subsidy under the plan, just not a 75 percent price break.

AARP also worries that charging seniors more based on income could taint Medicare as a welfare program, undercutting its political support.

That's what happens when a welfare program is marketed as not a welfare program and starts to get pricey.

Robert A Whit
12-20-2012, 01:03 PM
Me? I see a pattern of random numbers with no apparent basis in where they came from. But I will say this:

1. Why shouldn't you, or anyone for that matter, have a stake in paying for the medical services you receive?
2. When you give government the power to pay and make the rules, not everyone will like the outcome.

On another note, I think if the government is going to make continual changes to a private doctor's practice they should take away the liability for malpractice.

I think that the doctor bill is not what determines the price the govt. pays. I think they have their own scale. So the pattern is that the doctor gets the shaft. This is our own government doing this to them. And my doctors, several of them, all claim it will be worse due to Obama care.

Do you mean the stake I paid for many years for the program? Do you mean my monthly premium that I still pay? Do you mean only the co-pays that I also pay? I suppose I and the Doctor can get the shaft. But don't worry, it may get worse for you later on.

I do not give the Government any power. They have this illussion that we do, but in reality, we give them nothing. Notice only when you get to vote on direct issues, can you even pretend to have power.

Malpractice and added staff to deal with both insurance and the government are huge reasons our doctors must charge so much to remain in operation.

As an aside, modern medicine is relatively new. It was but a century ago that the surgeon also removed teeth.

As one more point.

When I cast my vote for state representative, my vote went to the republican.

I voted for his programs / policies/ etc and not the democrats.

But the Democrat won.

So, no I do not believe I have a thing to say about what the Federal Government does.

You take Pelousy and Boxer and Feinstein ... to me they are rogues.

fj1200
12-20-2012, 01:21 PM
I think that the doctor bill is not what determines the price the govt. pays. I think they have their own scale. So the pattern is that the doctor gets the shaft. This is our own government doing this to them. And my doctors, several of them, all claim it will be worse due to Obama care.

Do you mean the stake I paid for many years for the program? Do you mean my monthly premium that I still pay? Do you mean only the co-pays that I also pay? I suppose I and the Doctor can get the shaft. But don't worry, it may get worse for you later on.

I do not give the Government any power. They have this illussion that we do, but in reality, we give them nothing. Notice only when you get to vote on direct issues, can you even pretend to have power.
...

Yes, the Feds set the scale and the doctors get shafted but the patient eventually gets the shaft when it becomes more difficult to find a doctor that will accept patients on MC.

Do I mean what you paid prior to retirement? Your current premium? Co-pays? None of that goes to an effective market for HC in this country; each of those questions gets to the heart of how the consumer is insulated from the actual cost of the services that you receive. Is it dumb for me to be paying for your HC? Yes, just as it was dumb for you to be paying for the HC of someone else. Your monthly premium? No, it's not dumb for you to have a stake in your HC? Co-pays? No, for the same reason although you're still insulated from the true cost.

The government has the power and even though you don't think you voted for any of it, once you sign up for MC you have in effect given it to them and are now subject to their rules, including "death panels."

Robert A Whit
12-20-2012, 01:34 PM
Yes, the Feds set the scale and the doctors get shafted but the patient eventually gets the shaft when it becomes more difficult to find a doctor that will accept patients on MC.

Do I mean what you paid prior to retirement? Your current premium? Co-pays? None of that goes to an effective market for HC in this country; each of those questions gets to the heart of how the consumer is insulated from the actual cost of the services that you receive. Is it dumb for me to be paying for your HC? Yes, just as it was dumb for you to be paying for the HC of someone else. Your monthly premium? No, it's not dumb for you to have a stake in your HC? Co-pays? No, for the same reason although you're still insulated from the true cost.

The government has the power and even though you don't think you voted for any of it, once you sign up for MC you have in effect given it to them and are now subject to their rules, including "death panels."

Well, We agree.

Still, even though I did sign up for Medicare as it came with my Social Security, I played no role in creating the program. I could tell them till I am blue in the face what it takes to fix it and they don't have to show me one thing that they did that is due to my suggestions.

So, while they have the power, it was not because I gave them squat. I merely wanted some of my own money spent to them to do me some good. As you will do.

But I do agree otherwise.

We are for the most part all deluded boobs when it comes to government. We run around with this delusion that they care and that by paying them taxes, we get good.

Want to try something fun. Show up and tell them you are in charge of government and want the Admiral to take you on a tour of one of the nuclear carriers. Tell him you have the power.

fj1200
12-20-2012, 01:37 PM
So, while they have the power, it was not because I gave them squat. I merely wanted some of my own money spent to them to do me some good. As you will do.

Which is why fixing even such a broken system as SS and MC will be so hard.

Kathianne
12-20-2012, 01:42 PM
Which is why fixing even such a broken system as SS and MC will be so hard.

Yep, why my parents 'got more' than Robert will; why he will get more than me; why I'll get more than those under 55; the rest? God knows. I do know my kids in their 20's are up a creek. Can't imagine what my grandchildren will face.

Indeed, we'd all be better off, especially the youngest among us, if FDR had never existed.

fj1200
12-20-2012, 01:51 PM
^Just think of all those second houses in FL and RV's driving across the land that we essentially subsidized so that retirement could begin at 62.

Robert A Whit
12-20-2012, 04:07 PM
Which is why fixing even such a broken system as SS and MC will be so hard.


Yup. We agree again.:laugh:

Robert A Whit
12-20-2012, 04:13 PM
So is Medicare. Financial windfalls that is.

Before I got my first SS check, I really had not studied the extent of the benefits vs my cost to get those benefits.

After I got a check, I did some math. I don't know why when I was younger, that the math was not worked out.

I am getting a killing.

Sure, I love it. Who won't love that much free money.

I did not put enough into SS that I deserve such rich rewards. None of us did.

Then I had heart surgery done in early 2011. WOW.

MORE benefits to me. I was not getting ahead of MC due to my premiums and co pays but upon that surgery, suddenly I hit the jack pot. For the tiny sums paid to MC, I got a fat reward.

That is why the system is going broke.

aboutime
12-20-2012, 04:38 PM
Everyone talking about S.S. and Medicare needs to know, and recognize.

NOBODY in our government, in any office, anywhere DEMANDS that We, who are eligible to collect the S.S. we paid into during our younger, working years....IS REQUIRED TO APPLY, or TAKE THE BENEFITS. It is voluntary.

So. Due to my small retirement from the military. I also worked those 30 years, paying into S.S. and I do not plan on telling UNCLE SAM I do not want the money I earned.

For those pointing out how the system is paying out too much.

If it bothers you so much.

You do have the option to SEND YOUR MONTHLY PAYCHECK BACK to the U.S. Government.

Do your part, and help another American who might need it.

fj1200
12-20-2012, 05:03 PM
So. Due to my small retirement from the military. I also worked those 30 years, paying into S.S. and I do not plan on telling UNCLE SAM I do not want the money I earned.

...

You do have the option to SEND YOUR MONTHLY PAYCHECK BACK to the U.S. Government.

Do your part, and help another American who might need it.

I don't begrudge anyone taking their SS benefits as it was used as a planning tool for so many retirees and is necessary for people to live on and it has taken the first 13% of wages (since '83? at least). I do think that those who refuse to accept changes though it is unsustainable are part of the problem especially those who are otherwise able to live comfortably without.

I remember hearing Boortz talk about whether he would accept SS or not and he said that he would rather than letting the government spend the money poorly and that he would donate that portion to senior organizations.

aboutime
12-20-2012, 06:27 PM
I don't begrudge anyone taking their SS benefits as it was used as a planning tool for so many retirees and is necessary for people to live on and it has taken the first 13% of wages (since '83? at least). I do think that those who refuse to accept changes though it is unsustainable are part of the problem especially those who are otherwise able to live comfortably without.

I remember hearing Boortz talk about whether he would accept SS or not and he said that he would rather than letting the government spend the money poorly and that he would donate that portion to senior organizations.


Speaking of Boortz. Not long ago. I learned he was leaving...or retiring from his radio show. Too bad for all of us.

He was the last, accurate, honest voice on radio from the Constitutional point of view as a Libertarian who wasn't entirely Libertarian.

Anyone heard from him lately?

fj1200
12-20-2012, 07:20 PM
Speaking of Boortz. Not long ago. I learned he was leaving...or retiring from his radio show. Too bad for all of us.

He was the last, accurate, honest voice on radio from the Constitutional point of view as a Libertarian who wasn't entirely Libertarian.

Anyone heard from him lately?

His last show is January 20th although he's on vacation right now. Herman Cain is set to replace him but I just think he's awful in that role. I can hardly stand to listen when he's been subbing.

Robert A Whit
12-20-2012, 07:52 PM
His last show is January 20th although he's on vacation right now. Herman Cain is set to replace him but I just think he's awful in that role. I can hardly stand to listen when he's been subbing.

Foooey, I don't listen to talk radio unless driving someplace. I like Boortz but can't say I heard him on radio. I know of him from TV. Neil is so well informed. I plan to see if he is on my local radio. Don't know what Cain would bring to the show.