Would it help Medicare financially to LOWER, not raise, the eligibility age?

[Honeycombe8]

Just thinking...what if Medicare lowered its age of eligibility a couple of years, and CHARGED people for it? Would that make Medicare solvent?

People 63 years old are generally healthier than those older than 65, I would think. So they wouldn't be using the benefits to the same extent. Plus, if they are required to pay for it, that would add money to Medicare, in addition to the taxes.

Wouldn't that help Medicare more than raising the eligibility age? Just wondering. Or is that sort of the same thing as the ACA (but no, I don't think it is...it's a totally different thing).

[msongs]

1. lower it to conception age lol nt

[Lugnut]

3. That would suit me just fine.

If anyone could buy into Medicare having healthy people in the risk mix makes sense as I see it.

[SmileyRose]

5. agreed

[yardwork]

16. Just what I was going to post! And it would us lots of money.

A healthier nation is a more productive nation.

[Kaleva]

2. To add money to Medicare, govt. would have to charge more then what it costs.

In an article I read a few days ago, the monthly premium would be over $600 (another estimate was a little over $900) for anyone who wanted to buy into Medicare before they reached the age to get it at a much subsidised rate. And that premium would not add money into Medicare as it would just cover the cost of providing it.

[SmileyRose]

4. best ways to cut medicare costs

Stop paying for procedures. Pay per patient instead. Providers will quickly figure out how to stop duplicating tests and stop the worst of abuses by doctors who have figured out how to squeeze profits from patients with pharmacy and testing kickbacks.

Get serious about the focus in supporting quality of life rather prolonging death. More than 70% of all Medicare $ is spent in the last 2 years of life. Most only serves to profit Providers and prolong dying.

Those alone would cut Medicare costs by 40%

[HopeHoops]

6. What we need to do is roll all of medical insurance into single payer with no co-pay.

There's no reason to have for-profit medical facilities and insurance companies. They just suck money out of the system and force medical facilities to compete against each other. That means that if hospital A gets a Wooglimajig machine, hospital B will get one too and both will have monthly quotas to pay for the equipment so the board of directors will be happy. That's as fucked up as you can get.

Take the profits out of the system and this problem goes away. If there's no incentive for unnecessary tests, hospitals can concentrate on what they're intended to do - treat people. The cap on profits in "Obamacare" are a good start, but there's no reason to have profits involved in any part of the system. It's a scam on all levels. It isn't coincidence that we have the most expensive medical system in the world and provide the worst care in the free world. Money corrupts.

[TheKentuckian]

9. I'm not at all sure the MLR is a good thing as structured.

As is, it would seem to force up systemic costs because that is the only way for the insurance cartel to grow their bottom line.

It would work if service providers also were under it but they are not, so all the cartel has to do is inch up allowable costs and we have a national nightmare codified by law. The cartel already pays less than providers charge, they just have to pay a little more for the same services which will please the service providers while encouraging them to in turn keep pushing up rates to maintain the elasticity.

They can also do things that would be wildly popular to increase costs like opening formularies and networks that are will protected from political attack and benefit the end user.

Our gate keeper selection is irrational and that has consequences that can't be papered over. Folks need to grasp that we are playing with fire which means getting burned is a logical consequence.

[HopeHoops]

10. We just need to take profit out of the equation. The remaining details are trivial.

[Honeycombe8]

11. But what would your incentive be to become a dr. or nurse? If there's no

profit in it, why would you go through all thosee years of difficult schooling and training? You're smart, with excellent grades, so you can do anything, be anything. Wouldn't you choose instead to go into computers or something, where you'd make more money, if there's no money in being a dr or nurse?

[HopeHoops]

13. I never implied that the workers shouldn't get a good salary. Non-profit means the organization.

There are plenty of non-profits that pay high wages and that's fine. The problem is when the word "profit" becomes the motive.

[Honeycombe8]

14. Drs. don't get salaries. They get payment for services. If payments are cut, their income

is cut.

Nurses get salaries, based on the profitability of the institution or dr. office they work for, in conjunction with the going rate.

Drs. work for profit. The amount for services they get, after they take out for the expense of the office and staff salaries and expenses and benefits for staff.

That's not to say sky's the limit, but if payments for services are cut, it follows that the # of people going into the field will decrease. That's true for any field that requires bright, educated, trained people.

[HopeHoops]

15. Frankly, salaries would be better - and good ones. Universities aren't cheap!

And without the profits the insurance companies and medical facilities skim off of what's paid, the overall cost would be lower and doctors and nurses could get more than the do now. The profits are obscene.

It's basically what Obama did with student loans - cut out the middle man.

[Honeycombe8]

17. As I said, doctors don't usu. get salaries. They are business owners. nt

[Romulox]

7. There is no more money to give to medical/insurance complex. In the economy, I mean.

I am being hyperbolic, but the underlying point is serious--funneling MORE money to the insurance companies (which do not provide any medical care whatsoever, not even a band-aid) will not help Medicare.

We need single payer.

[MineralMan]

8. Single pool, single payer.

That's the solution to the whole thing. Everyone's in. Nobody's out. One bureaucracy to handle everything to save administrative costs. No profit whatsoever. Once there is a single pool that everyone is in, the cost should go down for everyone, since younger, healthier people who avoid medical insurance would be in the system, paying in.

Medicare for All is a great solution to the whole health care issue. Medicare already controls how much is paid out to providers, and its payout rates are used by insurance companies to negotiate with providers.

Profit and multiple bureaucracies are a big part of the reason health insurance is so expensive. Every health insurance company has a pile of highly-paid executives at the top of the pyramid. Those would be gone. With a single-payer system, there is one set of executives, who would be civil service employees, with limits on their maximum pay. That works throughout government employment.

Then, a single method for submitting claims by providers streamlines that process. Simple, computerized and well-automated. Fewer forms, fewer steps, and fewer people making mistakes that create FUBAR SNAFU in the system.

It's easy to understand. The profit motive for corporations is the only reason we don't already have this.

[former9thward]

12. All good points but the legal system has to be changed.

A great deal of the unneeded tests and procedures are because doctors and other medical providers are afraid of law suits. There is a whole industry of lawyers trolling for lawsuits. They are on commercials on tv every day alleging damages for some product or medical procedure. Until that is controlled costs will never go down single payer or not. Single payer systems in other countries do not have this problem.