General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Affordable Care Act is devastating to seniors
Did I say "devastating"? I meant "incredibly beneficial".
unhappycamper
(60,364 posts)My health plan changes: a new HMO card, same HMO, same doctors, same everything.
My monthly heath care insurance went from $450 a month (single, no kids living at home) to $109/month.
Single payer is the way to go.
BTW, Obamacare was written by the Heritage stinktank - written by Republicans for insurance companies. I would expect anything written by Republicans was written by their pwners. Their corporate pwners.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)when we reach retirement age, 60 women / 65 men, national health payments cease and all prescriptions become free at 60 for both sexes anyway.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)We need a Tony Benn in the United States.
-Laelth
MADem
(135,425 posts)You don't see the bills, but you do pay. It's a worthwhile tax, but it is something you all pay for.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)the prescriptions are paid from accruals from when NH payments were due prior to retirement age.
And by the way its been HMRC since April 2005 : not Inland Revenue.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Funny, I thought they did, despite the merger:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Revenue
The Inland Revenue was, until April 2005, a department of the British Government responsible for the collection of direct taxation, including income tax, national insurance contributions,capital gains tax, inheritance tax, corporation tax, petroleum revenue tax and stamp duty. More recently, the Inland Revenue also administered the Tax Credits schemes,[1] whereby monies, such as Working Tax Credit (WTC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC), are paid by the Government into a recipient's bank account or as part of their wages. The Inland Revenue was also responsible for the payment of child benefit.
The Inland Revenue was merged with HM Customs and Excise to form HM Revenue and Customs which came into existence on 18 April 2005.[2] The former Inland Revenue is thus now part of HM Revenue and Customs, but it is still the name by which the tax gathering department of government is commonly known by British people and is often referred to as "the Tax Man".
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)its still a bit of mouthful. Yes some do still refer to the Revenue same as some still refer to Customs & Excise.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)You are going to tell a UK national how the NHS works? That really comes under the heading of "don't try to teach your granny to suck eggs", you know . . .
lordloveaduck
MADem
(135,425 posts)The NHS is a fine system, but it isn't "free" and to pretend it is, is just not accurate. Everyone pays into the system via taxes, except for people who have an authorization to use the service as a consequence of international agreements, like a SOFA--and if you're accessing a doctor who doesn't understand that, it can be a pain in the ass to get services.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)Yes, it is a tax. However, as dipsydoodle said, it CHANGES when you reach retirement. You responded to his post with an argument that did not address what he was discussing.
https://www.gov.uk/tax-national-insurance-after-state-pension-age
People of pensionable age no longer pay into the national tax (unless their pension income and other income exceeds the personal allowance). They still get healthcare - so yes, technically, at that point in their lives it is "free" - after they spent a lifetime paying into the scheme they generally do not have to contribute more as pensioners.
Address what is said; if you want to discuss the NHS in its totality, you've got a leg to stand on - but suggesting he is wrong is nonsense.
MADem
(135,425 posts)If I pay off my mortgage and I am living in my house without having to make a payment every month, I'm not living "for free." I've paid the debt off. I earned my place in that home--no, I don't have a monthly expenditure NOW, but I have paid, already. It's the same deal with NHS.
Also, if a UK pensioner retires to sunny Spain, and stays away for more than half a year, he or she will have to PAY for NHS service, starting in April of next year. The NHS is gearing itself towards customers who live IN the UK, not people with Her Majesty's passports who think they can zip in whenever they feel like it and get some of that "free" healthcare.
Further, NHS trusts can now make up to 49 percent of their operating costs through "private" patients, up from a limit of TWO percent. If you don't think that is changing the dynamic of patient care in UK, I don't know what to tell you.
The paradigm is shifting. I know some people might not like this, but no shooting the messenger. Paradigms usually shift because--like it, or not--the present models are either outdated or unsustainable.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)You are insistent that the conversation needs to shift to a much broader area - the changing face of the NHS. You are attempting to do this by arguing something I said in my last post (that pensioners pay into the system their entire working lives) - which tells me you aren't reading what I wrote - and by shifting your own argument to discuss people who are not living in the UK; something that was never addressed, or ever alluded to by anyone but you. Further, you are moving the discussion to what is going to happen or may happen in the future of the NHS - again, nothing to do with the poster's comment or any attempt on my part to address the poster's comment.
What the poster said is the point of this particular discussion. What they said and how you responded, which is something you are trying to ignore and defend at the same time - a fascinating, but tedious exercise.
I do not disagree that the NHS model is changing; part of it is a necessary retooling and part of it is the sordid manipulations of the current political leadership. However, that really has little to do with what Dipsydoodle said.
That is the bottom line and I'm getting off this merry-go-round now, since it is abundantly clear that you don't want to engage in the original discussion, but the future of the NHS - and that's a topic for the UK group or even a new thread in GD if you choose to start one.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Not the NHS. Threads, as they do, devolve and subthreads crop up to expand on issues and bring up other aspects--it's called conversation and it happens in good threads here. As for this conversation, it's wiggling around a bit to go afield here and there, but there's no "rule" that we have to hew to a narrow path of your invention--you aren't the thread nanny, here. I don't think dipsydoodle needs an interlocutor, and neither do I but thanks anyway.
I think you might want to try letting people fight their own battles.
I stand by the points I made, sorry if they bent you out of shape, but I can't really help that, now, can I? I don't think I'll be toddling off to another group to start a topic, but you're welcome to do that if it means so much to you.
Cheers...
Boudica the Lyoness
(2,899 posts)Not everybody pays taxes. Also there are many people who come into the country just long enough to have a baby or surgery. They are called 'Health Tourists' I believe. The government talked about trying to stop them, but the doctors said it would be unethical to do that. UK docs are not all about the money it seems.
BTW, how long were you in the UK and were did you live? I haven't lived there for 40 years.
I must say I'm very impressed with the care my parents are getting there. Both are ill and a car or ambulance is sent to take them to their treatments or just their regular appointments. My mum had to go 40 miles away for special treatment and a car would would pick her up at their house every week and take her home again. It's very good.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The government IS stopping them, and the UK doctors aren't getting in their way--in fact, many are eager to take on a cadre of private patients and raise money from "paying" customers.
And pretty soon, anyone getting free care is gonna need a UK address, too.
Sure, every country has people who don't pay taxes, but they are OUTLIERS. Most of them, the ones who aren't severely disabled and have been their entire lives, have paid into the system at some point in time and are vested in the scheme. Most countries with even marginal health care infrastructures take care of the "least of the brethren." Some do it better than others, but destitute people are cared for in most circumstances. They aren't the majority of the patients, though and they are not to whom I am referring.
That is a popular fiction in the UK, that everyone gets treated if they wind up at the hospital, and no one gets a bill, but that is not true--hasn't been for many years, now. Sure, have a heart attack in Picadilly and they'll take care of you, but don't even think about flying in to get that mole removed, or have your pesky gall bladder taken out--that is not happening.
And people are PAYING to get care, and more will be in future, too: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-truth-about-health-tourism-twice-as-many-foreign--visitors-pay-to-use-nhs-as-exploit-free-healthcare-in-britain-8902520.html
New research that turns the high-profile debate on its head, has found that 18 NHS trusts made a total income of £42m in 2010-11 from foreign paying patients
The study also highlights the massive potential for NHS trusts to make money from foreign paying patients, who are willing to spend large sums on care at some of the health services internationally renowned hospitals.
In total, 52,000 people who entered the UK in 2010 declared that the main purpose of their visit was to seek healthcare. Researchers said it was highly unlikely that any of them would be seeking to exploit the NHS for free care because it would be too easy to track them. While some will have been visiting for treatment in the private sector, a large number will have visited NHS hospitals that were willing to charge for certain procedures.
Dr Johanna Hanefeld, lecturer in health systems economics at LSHTM, said that as a result it was likely that the number of foreign patients paying for NHS care is double the number coming to the UK seeking free healthcare a group estimated to number between 5,000 and 20,000 by government-commissioned research published earlier this week. The new research also found that, overall, the UK is a net exporter of patients, with 63,000 travelling abroad for treatment in 2010.
Researchers submitted Freedom of Information requests to 28 NHS foundation trust hospitals. Among the 18 trusts which responded was Great Ormond Street childrens hospital, which took an income of over £20m from 656 patients.
The potential for foreign patients to pay for care at NHS hospitals is set to increase. Under the Governments health reforms, NHS trusts can now raise up to 49 per cent of funds through non-NHS work a huge increase on the 2 per cent cap set by the previous government.
And there IS a "crackdown" underway--even UK citizen - EXPATS are going to be required to pay for NHS care starting next April:
Under new restrictions, people who fly to Britain to exploit the NHS will be denied free care. The ban preventing visitors and failed asylum seekers from milking the system is likely to come into force by next April.
Health Minister John Hutton warned that health tourism was a 'significant' problem and swift action was needed to safeguard the NHS for taxpayers.
The new rules may lead to all patients being asked for proof of residence, such as a passport or electricity bill.
However, pensioners from the UK who live abroad for more than half the year will be denied free treatment.
No matter how much they have paid in tax and National Insurance over the years, such expatriates will now have to pay for NHS care back in Britain.
Only treatment for emergencies - such as heart attacks, accidents or sudden illness - will still be free.
The move will hit thousands who have retired to the Spanish costas, France or other European countries.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-204961/UK-expats-fall-victim-health-tourism.html#ixzz2mZyzzB6x
The system IS about the money, both making it and trying to hold in costs. It is about prioritizing the "taxpayer"--those who have or are paying into the system. There is a paradigm shift that has been happening for many years in health care, not just in USA, but all over the world--and UK as well. Everyone gets care, but not always the cutting edge treatments, and there is a queue. Remember that "Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" film? One of the characters--a racist pensioner-- goes to India for her new hip.
Medical tourism is happening all over the world--South America for plastic surgery, Brazil for dentists, India for hips, knees, and bypasses. Spend a few moments researching the concept on the internet--you'll be very surprised.
It's one of the reasons that parents raise money in UK with charity schemes (forty thousand pounds, some of them) to send their children with cerebral palsy to St. Louis, to the Children's Hospital there, to get an operation that used to not be available at all in UK, but is now "marginally" available to some--but not all-- children who need it (the doctor who does this operation trained the few doctors in UK who do the procedure). In very recent years, well over a hundred kids have left UK to get this operation. UK guidance discourages the procedure (thousands have had it, it's a frigging MIRACLE for children with debilitating spacticity) , and while they claim they have been doing it at 2 UK hospitals since 1988, they were using an old, outdated method that involved a lot of spinal compromise, had high rates of infection, and they were only doing two or three a year. See:
http://www.scope.org.uk/help-and-information/therapies/selective-dorsal-rhizotomy
http://www.stlouischildrens.org/health-care-professionals/publications/doctors-digest/septemberoctober-2010/park-performs-2000th-sel
http://www.support4sdr.org/SDRHOP.html
Dr Park has operated on people from 48 different countries and a number of those countries have trained or are training surgeons to offer this procedure. Indeed, SDR is currently performed in Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy, Poland, Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Canada and Mexico. As of 30 March 2012, 145 people from the United Kingdom have been operated on in St Louis120 from England, 18 from Scotland and 7 from Wales.
I lived in UK for several years, most recently in the 90s for just over two years--I've been back more recently, though, for visits--I can't say I'm up on every single thing that has been happening, but as I have friends with whom I keep in touch regularly, I remain "situationally aware."
Boudica the Lyoness
(2,899 posts)When I was going to Cambridge to have surgery because my US insurance had called it 'Experimental' and refused to cover it. I would have been a private paying patient, even though I'm a Brit and have a national health number. No way would they have let me have the surgery paid for by the NHS. I could have even come up with UK address. That was 6 years ago. BTW, My US doctor had a peer to peer review with the insurance co and they covered it in the end....after months of suffering on my part. I was told by the surgeon in the UK, it would cost me $14,000 there for everything. In the US it cost me $60,000. I liked the fact I was able to communicate directly with the surgeon in England. That wouldn't happen in the US. I've had 9 surgeries here.
There are plenty of people in the UK for are on benefits and have never worked and never intend to. I know of some personally.
I'm glad they are tightening up there.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It is the "new normal" to deny folks first, then you have to fight. Sometimes ya win, sometimes not.
People who can afford to pay are in a better situation, but even if they're stuck doing that, money can be saved if one takes the time to "shop around."
UK costs are lower than US ones, because the system is geared around being non-profit (and there are no insurance companies with their hand in the till, and malpractice--which is hugely expensive-- isn't the growth industry that it is in USA). The more they allow the NHS doctors to take on paying patients, though, the more those "private" costs are likely to rise. They'll still probably will be a good deal for a long while, though.
I know a Canadian (they have the all-inclusive health care too, of course) who had a bad hip and was in line for the operation, but because of where he lived, he would have either had to wait or travel across the country to get the doggone operation. His wife wanted to see India, so they combined a "trip with a hip" and it worked out well for them (I first learned about the whole heath tourism thing from them, actually--this was quite a few years back). Now, he could have gotten the hip if he'd waited a while, for free, or travelled in winter, but he was in the hurt locker, didn't want to take pain pills and wait, or have his mobility limited for several cold winter months. Apparently they have a system up there where it depends on where you live how fast the services (save the "Yer gonna die" ones, of course) are allocated. If you live in the middle of nowhere, you just might have to wait, or travel!
I do like the concept of health care for all, and I do think we're getting to it here in USA--the road to single payer is through ACA, I believe, and it's also through "state's rights" (how ironic that a construct used for racist hatred can be used for good), with VT leading the charge. It's not going to happen straight away, though--it will happen incrementally and in stages. That said, even if we do get to that point, there are going to be people who will want to jump the queue, but they'll just have to pay to do that.
I haven't had many surgeries, but the few I have had were in military settings. I was not only able to communicate directly with the surgeon, but I got a visit from the CO of the hospital afterward. I've also helped a few friends in recent years as a patient advocate for their surgeries, and they always had a surgeon consult -- I usually go along to "ask the right questions" and facilitate understanding. The surgeons have never minded and they were all pretty forthcoming. I've done all but one of these at MA General, though, so I don't really know if this is typical in all hospitals or if MGH--or Massachusetts-- is special.
I guess they have some sort of welfare-to-work scheme over there now, but it doesn't look like it's doing very well if this article is any indication (fifteen percent is a pretty lousy number, IMO): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24286806
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)sigh
Thirties Child
(543 posts)Last month she spent nine days in the hospital (in hospital) with vasculitis (inflammation of the blood vessels), saw every kind of specialist, had every organ tested, was on intravenous antibiotics, was given morphine, was finally sent home because they were worried about a hospital bug finding the open wounds on her leg. I can't imagine what it would have cost over here, or how long insurance would have let her stay in the hospital. Assuming, of course, that she had insurance. She very much wants to come back, but her British husband says they can't afford to give up National Health. He's also worried about the violence over here.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)My grandmother pays twice as much as you do and says she has been told she cannot get a cheaper premium.
(I am not doubting you one bit. I'm just trying to get helpful information for my grandmother.)
dotymed
(5,610 posts)They take payments from my disability check but I have BC/BS from Union.
Should I go on ACA site and search for a better price?
I have kept both insurances because my BC/BS has to be verified by Dr. every 6 months. I have heart failure and could not survive any lapse.
Catch 22, if I use Medicare I will lose BC/BS...
Any suggestions?
Stellar
(5,644 posts)I'm diabetic and I use my medicare and my BC/BS (HMO) through my employer. My understanding is that medicare pays 80% and my BC/BS pays the other 20% with some co-pay as of this year.
I'm switching to a PPO next year to go along with my medicare.
Am I missing something? Isn't that the way it's suppose to work? My husband used to take care of things but he's deceased now. So I might sound a little stupid.
boomersense
(147 posts)switching to a PPO next. More and more doctors are not taking HMO's although they will take MCare. I thought the payment structure between Private and MCare is based upon the number of employees in a company covered by the Private. We have MCare, but Part A only and don't use it at all; our Private pays 100 per cent of the freight, but we have a thousand dollar deductible PP. Employer insurance is probably on the way out within a few years. The older doctors are leaving and in many cases NP's are taking over--and now the Consult-by-Telephone. Wait until you do one of those. I've had the experience described to me as "unusual". Creating reall problems for pharmacists. Good luck to you.
I worked for the State of Illinois for 32 years and I have Medicare part A and B. So if they get rid of employer Insurance I hope ObamaCare will pick up the slack.
boomersense
(147 posts)get into the congress and the white house, which will be known next year when certain realities hit. Again, good luck to you. I too am getting older. We will both need so much more than luck. I like your handle.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)Mine seems to be a unique case.
My Union insurance does not work in tandem with any other insurance. If you have another insurance, they cancel your Union insurance (you can keep it through COBRA). When my Daughter got Insurance through her work she was no longer eligible to stay on my policy. It is their rules, their insurance is a "Cadillac plan."
If I retired because of age, I would be responsible for COBRA payments. Since I had to retire because of health, my Union pays for my insurance. I have to be re-certified every 6 moths.
It is strange but the Union has been there for me every step of the way.
boomersense
(147 posts)is going to try to work until she is 75 so she can stay on her employer-paid insurance, which is United Healthcare--not even close to your BC/BS in quality--but still leagues above Medicare. If we have to go on Medicare, we will offer our doctor a side payment (not the right word--(retainer?) so that he will keep us). My wife is the Director of Nursing Services for a large, well-known AZ hospital. Virtually all of the residents there are Private. Still, my wife keeps up with what's happening in the real world through contacts with doctors she's know for many years. Research this decision you are making. Maybe one of the most important researches you will ever do. I don't know whether you will have to see a different doctor than the one you are accustomed to in a switch to MCare, but it is an experience you do not want to go through if you can avoid it. The alternatives I saw when I did the research were not viable. Good luck to you. I have enjoyed your posts for years.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)That means Medicare pays its share first, and then BC/BS takes care of the rest.
Medigap plans are the best supplementals of all because coverage is standardized by government regulation. Don't be fooled into an "Advantage" plan. Those are mostrinsurance.
The Medigap plan that most DUers seem to find favorable is Plan F.
Your coverage would be excellent, and that's important for you. You are already paying for Medicare.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)on a fixed income that's a lot of money.
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)I have Medicare plans A & B, which is $105 monthly. That is a big chunk out of a $1400 monthly SS check.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)That could potentially be a big chunk of change too.
h2ebits
(644 posts)The biggest mistake I made was to listen to all of the insurance companies trying to sell me their MediGap plans. PLEASE read the annual booklet that is sent out by our government and is called: "Medicare and You."
The US government booklet lays out the requirements for the MediGap policies that the insurance companies are trying to get you to buy. (Plan F is the Cadillac plan, by the way.) If you look in the "Medicare and You" booklet you will also see various other Plan options. All of the Plans require that you be covered under Medicare Part A & Part B, which is $104 plus some change per MONTH, at this writing. The Plan offerings are regulated by the government but the premiums are all IN ADDITION to Medicare premiums and will vary by insurance company and plan type. It is my understanding that you also need to sign up for the Medicare Part D prescription plan in order to have prescriptions filled.
The booklet will also explain the other insurance plans available in your area that are acceptable to use for additional coverage. In my area, Denver, Colorado, with the exception of one PPO plan, all of the rest are HMO policies. Most, if not all, of the policies include prescription coverage so you do not have to sign up for Medicare Part D. I don't care for HMO policies because they tie me down too much as to who I can see and where I can go but I'm also a healthy 65-year old so will put up with it.
In the end, I chose a United Healthcare HMO with a -0- additional premium and it includes prescriptions. It acts as a regular insurance policy--if you have had insurance then you understand the co-pay, deductibles, and out-of-pocket expenses. This particular policy has a $10 co-pay and some deductibles but it also has a $4,200 out-of-pocket expense. This means that I won't pay more than $4,200 any given year. Divide $4,200 by 12 mo. and the cost to me, should I have a serious health problem, would be $350 per mo. in additional expense in the year of the health problem.
Please remember that you are dealing with insurance companies!!! Please arm yourself with as much knowledge as possible before making a decision. Consider contacting your local recreation center or senior center to see if they can direct you to a class or seminar in your area that is teaching people about all of this detail. And finally, please read the booklet "Medicare and You."
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Not on retirement income, apparently.
Also, the choice for seniors is a supplemental, or paying the co-pays, or qualifying for Medicaid. Of the supplementals, Medigap is the best investment. With a plan F, one DU-er's hubby had brain surgery and didn't pay a penny. I'd say that $200 is a good investment for someone who is still working.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)I am busy and I have a right to kn ow what I am trying to read and what it is I want to read. I resent what you did. In your probably well intentioned attempt to draw attention to the good qualities of the ACA you wasted my right to choose what I wanted to read with your dishonesty. There are so many causes we need to work on and your misleading headlines wasted some of that time. So thanks for nothing.
Lest you think I am on the other darker side, let me tell you I circulate petitions for medicaid expansion, was neighborhood team leader for Obama, am a member of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and am part of a group to fight Gerrymandering in Ohio, as well as a democratic precinct captain for 2 precincts
Leave the deceiving attention grabbing headlines to Fox news.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Where's that Pizza man today?
KansDem
(28,498 posts)If ever there was an example of a "word salad"...
deafskeptic
(463 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)I don't like being tricked either.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Or a different giant, flaming, Nazi gasbag?
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)bearssoapbox
(1,408 posts)It took me almost 3 MINUTES to click and read your post, rec it, and read the comments.
That includes reading the comment about wasted time that probably took longer to write than it did to read the post.
Good, interesting graph though. Thanks for posting.
From someone who's time isn't as valuable as some people's.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)This place
brush
(53,791 posts)IMO more people are apt to read the post if you mention the benefits of the ACA in the head.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)It gets people to read actual news.
Now if you hadn't been posting something very important he might have had a leg to stand on.
Your point # 5 is extremely important.
It changes the whole dynamic of looking at the entitlements.
Keep it up.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)moosewhisperer
(114 posts)You wasted my time...so then I'll spend several minutes writing about it.
Omnith
(171 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)You only speak for yourself.
My time wasn't wasted because I knew exactly where the OP was going with it...but then again, I am not humor impaired, either.
I think that is covered under the ACA, though. You should look into it.
Demit
(11,238 posts)the thread title was a cheap joke. A gimmick. Like the poster who complained, I don't like cheap gimmicks either. And, like the poster, I don't mind taking the time to say so.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)And then just think of the time you wasted with all that typing.
mockmonkey
(2,820 posts)I think that all good, right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not, and I'm sick and tired of being told that I am.
Graham Chapman
On second thought you didn't need to read that.
auntAgonist
(17,252 posts)being wasted.
Seriously .. mountain meet molehill.
aA
kesha
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)reading an Internet bulletin board?
Callmecrazy
(3,065 posts)W-A-A.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Open a post and get the topic? LOL, lighten up!!!
riverbendviewgal
(4,253 posts)I think it caught everyone's attention....so it takes a second to look and look longer than you want.
I had a post that had 2 recs and few replies but I feel good because it has had over 700 views....People were curious enough to read. and if only 2 percent really liked and absorbed the message I feel good.
Remember don't shoot the messenger , look at the message.
eppur_se_muova
(36,269 posts)Just think how many beFoxxed low-attention voters are likely to Goggle "Obamacare seniors" and find the OP among their hits.
BrainDrain
(244 posts)this is terrible...awful....earth shattering....for the Repugs that is.
Nice chart dude, thks.
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)the past 4 years, and then she was offered a new plan for 2014 which literally reduced the monthly premium to pocket change! She did say her co-pays would go up a tiny amount, but she will still see a significant overall amount of savings from what she had paid before, and it was still under $100 per month in 2013.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)The same.
Same everything.
HelenWheels
(2,284 posts)I thought it was a pretty bizarre thing for you to say and I was right.
ananda
(28,866 posts)I pay the $105 for Medicare, and $75 for the advantage plan,
which is actually a combination of Medicare, prescription drugs,
and some other stuff.
The deductible is $150, and they apply everything I pay out to it,
which is nice.
Medicare is somewhat hit and miss, though. It will cover some
things, but not others. But all in all, it's better than what I had
before, and my monthly premium that adds up to $180 a month
is $100 less than it was before... and the drugs are cheaper too.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The folks working here are dumping their employer based health insurance for Medicare. It's cheaper and "just as good" (it always depends upon ones personal health situation). and we have a "pretty good" health insurance plan (It's gettin' worse but is better than many of my friends). Truth is, many of the retirees are dumping the retirement healthcare and switching to a combo of Medicare and an AARP "medigap" insurance. Cheaper and "just as good" (see above disclaimer).
boomersense
(147 posts)doesn't always work but, for me, it did this time. I might have passed your post had you stated a header summary that directly related to the post body. I will research 2 and 3 however.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and be ready to jump in boots first to agree.
then they open the thread and see...
nice, very nice.
Omnith
(171 posts)Obamacare subsidies the sick (old) at the expense of the healthy (young) which is a good thing. So seniors should have a benefit from the ACA. But when I clicked on your thread I saw you tricked me, or just said what I already new. Your lie of a headline got me to click on your thread, well done.
Response to Scuba (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)The first test I will administer will be grammar.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Progressive dog
(6,905 posts)a big money saver for those in the donut hole. There is a 52.5% discount for non-generic drugs and it goes to 75% by 2020. 100% counts toward the donut hole.
There is a 21% discount for generic in donut hole, increasing to 75% in 2020, but that discount doesn't count toward the hole.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)I'm turning 65 in February and going on that socialized Medicare. I'm now paying $980 a month(Self-Employed) and Healthy and my new payment will be $149 a month with same company and better benefits. I also will contribute more to more to the Democrats!!!!!