Big price hikes coming for Medicare premiums in 2016

[wopphil]

I am all for privatization in some form. Perhaps it should be restricted to conservative, safer investments. I don't like the fact that I pay the maximum into SS and will get a measly couple thousand dollars a month when I am ready to retire. The same contributuons, earning just modest interest, would be worth far more in a privatized system.

[Crampknees]

I get Juan Savage's newsletter

You sure it is a newsletter and not a manifesto?

[LAAMike]

The Medicare Part B increases will not be announced until October. It does appear that 30% will get a sharp increase as there will likely be no COLA for Part A so 70% of the recipients have a "hold harmless" from the higher Part B premiums. The increase in Part B costs thus has to be absorbed by the remaining 30%. In 2017 there will likely be a COLA so the additional costs will be spread across 100% of the pool so those getting a large hike in 2016 will see these premiums decrease in 2017. The overriding concern is what is driving the Part B costs from $104.90 to $120.70 per month.

[juansavage1]

Is healthcare cheaper of better in some way today than it was in 2008? 

[LAAMike]

It is only "better" in that a group of those previously uninsured are now insured. There are also now no prohibitions on previous health problems and the increase in the age for your children to stay on their parent's policy is also regarded as better. It currently is not a cost effective system/solution. We would have been better off collectively to give the uninsured a check to pay their premiums from the plans available.

[juansavage1]

It is only "better" in that a group of those previously uninsured are now insured. There are also now no prohibitions on previous health problems and the increase in the age for your children to stay on their parent's policy is also regarded as better. It currently is not a cost effective system/solution. We would have been better off collectively to give the uninsured a check to pay their premiums from the plans available.

To be fair to people who supported this plan, greater availability was what they were after, not more efficiency or cost-effectiveness. It's not dumb to want universal health care as long as people are honest about the downsides. 

[LAAMike]

I appreciate your reasoned response. I am only saying that if Washington is going to get involved they should seek the most effective way to pay for the objective so that the taxpayers have as little pain as possible. This was not done in this case, imo.

[juansavage1]

I appreciate your reasoned response. I am only saying that if Washington is going to get involved they should seek the most effective way to pay for the objective so that the taxpayers have as little pain as possible. This was not done in this case, imo.

Let's be honest: The debate over health care has little to do with how to make Joe Taxpayer's health care better or cheaper. For many, universal health care is an article of faith. It's just a good thing to have, regardless. They might argue how to get to that goal, but it's still the goal. 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Health care reform was definitely needed. A system that leaves decisions about doling out care in the hands of companies with a profit motive is inherently flawed. That said, this plan was hastily constructed to rush it through during what was rightfully assumed to be a limited time with the same party controlling the White House and Congress. We shouldn't go back to the old system, but this one as it is constructed isn't sustainable.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Vegas Halo Fan