Republicans and "means testing"...Healthcare

[SoCalDem]

Republicans love to toss the mean testing idea around when it comes to social security, and with healthcare, it MIGHT be a good idea..

What IF:

each wage earner/dividend earner/ could be "charged" 5% of their NET income/earnings , paid monthly, for medical care...Regardless of income..

The super-rich would still probably pay out of pocket for "the best", but that pool of money could be fairly substantial..

a net income of 2K, would only cost $100 ...BUT a person with 10K per month would pay "their fair share"..

The "extra" would probably be enough to cover the ones who either had NO income, or were on assistance..

[bryant69]

1. I don't know

It would be tricky to sell losing an additional 5% of their income each paycheck (I wouldn't enjoy it, that's for sure). Particularly for those who have a healthcare plan right now.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[RivetJoint]

2. What if I already have a healthcare

plan from my employer? What about those in the military? Or those who work for the federal Govt?

Why not just increase FITW on those making over $100K to pay for this new welfare program?

[davsand]

3. You may have coverage from your employer now, however...

...many employers are upping the amount employees pay in co-pays or even for their "share" of health insurance. There was an excellent article on this on the front page of the Chicago Trib just this last weekend. I'd link it, except it is subscription only...

Health premiums jump 15%
Workers face higher co-payments too

By Bruce Japsen
Tribune staff reporter

October 10, 2004

"Health-care premiums will surge at least 15 percent next year, more than triple the average worker's pay raise.

Co-pays for hospital stays or prescription drugs are going up too.

Employees nationwide are getting their first glimpse of rate hikes in store for 2005 as they enter the fall open enrollment period, the time when workers sign up for benefits or choose among insurance plans.

What they'll see might make even the most hardy individual feel a bit sick: Individual employees on average will pay $1,481 in 2005, more than double what they paid five years ago, according to projections by Lincolnshire-based Hewitt Associates. Those numbers are a bit higher for Chicago workers, who will see their average contribution increase to $1,540 from $1,339 this year..."

It is frightening, and it impacts us all--even if we have insurance from our employers.


Laura

[RivetJoint]

5. But what if I DON'T

face higher premiums? What if I have a primo system NOW? Why would I want to change it?

[ogsball]

4. My insurance before deductables is @ 20%

of my income right now. So a 5% would be a significant reduction. I assume this would be like the payroll tax and be a straight line percentage up to a certain amount of income.

[SoCalDem]

8. Exactly...

Instead of a hodge-podge of "lucky people" who have employer assisted" insurance, and "unlucky people" who have employers who DON'T offer affordable insurance, EVERY single worker would pay a 5% premium.. The EXCESS collected from the gazillionaires should more than make up for the shortfall for the poorer people..

Think about it.. If a person making 20K, all of a sudden did not have to pay 20-25% of their income for medical insurance, they would have EXTRA money to spend in the economy.. The superrich are not going to spend anymore than they already do..BUT the people making less than say..100K WILL spoend the extra money..

People are NOT spending now because they fear loss of their jobs (and the insurance that goes with it).. They are AFRAID.. People do not spend money when they are afraid that the income might stop..

This would make insurance truly portable too...People would be able to start their own businesses, because they could afford 5%, but not 1000+ a month, when they are trying to get their busiiness off the ground..


I'm sorry, but the greedy HMOs & Insurnace companies should just find other employment:).. Isn't that what the Bushies always tell the outsourced people ?? Times change...so should we :)

[grasswire]

6. I'll never understand...

...why Medicare is not means tested.

Look at the other "entitlements" and programs that are means tested:

Student Loans
Housing Assistance
Food Stamps
Welfare Assistance
Small Business Loans

and so on.

Why not means test Medicare? Why should taxpayers pay the direct medical expenses of people who can easily afford their own private insurer?

Suppose the cap is assets of $500,000 with a homestead exemption and income of $150,000 annually. No Medicare for people over that level. Why not? A person with that level of resources can buy private health insurance and long-term care insurance with little trouble.

[RivetJoint]

7. Because it is an insurance program

If you "buy" the insurancee, you ought to be able to file claims against it when the time comes.

[Oak2004]

12. Were you alive when Medicare was passed?

A big part of why it passed was that private insurers were beginning to refuse to insure retirees. Old folks are the primary consumers of health care, and therefore not profitable to insure.

If an older person today could find anyone to provide non-Medicare buffered health insurance, the premiums would be unaffordable for all but the astronomically wealthy, and even then probably not much better than self-insurance.

[BamaGirl]

9. That's less than half what we pay now

So I'm all for it lol. I don't think you would ever convince the people at the higher ends of the income bracket though. They generally are really not about paying "their fair share".

[SoCalDem]

10. That's the way insurance "used" to work..

LARGE pools of insured meant that prices could be low enough.. HMO's and the modern insurnace plans have excluded so many people, that they are now in smaller and smaller groups, so in order to cover the really sick people, they MUST charge high premiums..

The 5% solution would cover literally EVERYONE in the country, all at the same "rate".. Would the rich person ever "use" his 5% of income??maybe not, but his %5 would not hurt him all that much...and it would insure that everyone was covered..The employers would no longer HAVE to cover employees, and when a person retired, they would retain their coverage, regardless of their age, since it would still be tied to what they net..

Employers would , once again, be able to offer real raises...not the phony raises they give now.. "Hey Joe, I'm giving you a $100.00 a month raise....but your insurance premium went up $125.00, and your co-pay doubled."

[shraby]

11. Me and my husband are retired.

Insurance for us uses up his whole company retirement plus a hundred. $822.00 per month. We aren't old enough for medicare yet and if insurance makes another jump next year it will eat even more of our income..and neither of us go to the doctor more than about once a year.

[Cleita]

13. Means testing always causes a program to implode.

Many who need assistance don't get it because they earn too much to qualify, but don't earn enough pay the difference. The wealthy like it because they can concoct all kinds of tax credits which are beneficial only to them.

Of course now that the neo-cons are trying to privatize SS and Medicare, I think they have screwed everyone.

[SoCalDem]

14. My idea is not means-testing in the usage..only in the paying-for

Actually not means testing in the way it's sometimes used at all..

Just that a gazillionaire would have to pay 5% of his net income into the "pool", just as a person making 10K would pay 5%..

Everyone would receive medical care when they got sick...and if the super-richies did not like the cazre they got, they could hire "personal doctors" like they hire "personal trainers"..

They would still pay into the pool..:)