wakephan09
fuck duke
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 29,204
- Reaction score
- 3,402
In the years after he's president, Trump is certainly going to use his PDB or whatever intelligence he still gets to try to make money.
CH, here's a question for you. If you haven't game-planned for this, I bet you can get the answer very easily.
I understand there will be a lot moving parts to making this concept a reality, but can Biden legally create and enforce an Executive Order to lower or totally eliminate the age requirement for Medicare?
In the years after he's president, Trump is certainly going to use his PDB or whatever intelligence he still gets to try to make money.
We have certainly modeled the impact of Medicare at 55 but this must be done via legislation.
McConnell is handing both seats to the Dems. If the Dems have ANY brains (losing to Collins and Daines makes this very questionable), the should win these two seats in a walk. McConnell's refusal to do anything but help corporations during this Covid explosion should hand both seats to the Dems.
EVERY ad should be showing that if Loeffler of Perdue win every family in GA is at risk. Show people losing their homes, their jobs, etc.
This should VERY easy.
I think the recent elections show that carpet bombing with ads-even "good" ads-doesn't work. The Dems need to support Stacey Abrams doing her thing.
I think the recent elections show that carpet bombing with ads-even "good" ads-doesn't work. The Dems need to support Stacey Abrams doing her thing.
Given that everyone would have to do big changes, if there is legislation, it should start at 55 and then progress into being able to buy into Medicare at any age. I think the insurance companies that most quickly build their supplemental products and deepest will do very, very well.
There's no reason for all Americans not to be able to buy into Medicare in the next 5-10 years.
The hospital lobby is against lowering the age to 60 - they're pretty powerful and will go ape-shit if 55 is proposed because Medicare pays them about half of what commercial insurance pays. Add to that the fact that the Medicare trust is projected to go be insolvent in 2024.
Counter to that opposition is the popularity of lowering the age among the age group affected and to the states due to the large number of people who would be moved from Medicaid to Medicare, thus saving the states $$$. It still leaves a massive cost that needs to be covered or we just add to the debt as the orange man does.
Our Chief Legal Officer, a former Obama adviser, has been bullish the law stands at least 6-3 or 7-2. Roberts pretty much nailed it....If Congress wanted to kill the whole law, they could have, but they didn't. They just ended the tax. At this point, striking the mandate isn't meaningful at all. The law only works because of the subsidies.
Sounds like one hell of a CLO.
CH could probably come up with some of the math. It doesn't have to be paid for by the feds. HHS could come use Medicare numbers to come up with a fair price for Medicare coverage (it would be dramatically lower than private coverage due to drastically lower overhead, grossly lower marketing costs and no profits to worry about). The new product could also use the employer/employee structure or even a "tax" that could have family and employer participation.
No bottom age could be phased in.
I generally agree with WFU71. Medicare reimbursement is low relative to private pay and thats where the savings are and why many many many groups will oppose it. This really also isn't about admin savings either, see Medicare Part C which actually is privatized Medicare a/b/d which generally saves overall spend. Admin in itself isn't a bad thing if its used to control spend. We need to get over that myth.
If you could spend a $1 to save $10, we should do that all day long. A real life example. If we had a tool that helped steer people to super efficient PCPs who really understand how to control costs should we do it? If that tool cost $1 but saved $10 a month?
Im also not a huge fan of building onto a fee for service system like traditional medicare. We need to create value models and move away from FFS.
The better path may be to cap ACA reimbursement at some % of Medicare, say 130% and see how exchange prices drop.
I certainly thunk Medicare to 55 will get a lot of attention but lots of open ?s on it.
As a PT who often tries to get durable medical equipment covered for patients I fucking hate Medicare replacement plans.
As a PT who often tries to get durable medical equipment covered for patients I fucking hate Medicare replacement plans.
Yep
My experience Leads me to feel the same way about Medicare Advantage plans. They offer some nice sounding trinkets then save (make their profits) partly by restricting/obstructing needed care.