Maybe. But odds are this suburban barber is a woman with a child or two, and took the job because child care is nasty hard. Gotta work close to the kids. Works in a chain at a strip mall 3 or 4 days a week.
Let’s keep it real.
I just got a western union telegraph from a blacksmith telling me to be sure and buy plenty of buggy whips and barrel staves the next time I’m in town getting shoes on my horse (and be sure to not buy one of those horseless carriage contraptions).
1 Like
Huge is relative. Part A B and D included average Medicare bene costs about $14k or so. 60-65 will obviously be lower. Let’s just call it 10k for ease (though it is likely even less). 14 million people in that age bucket. 14M x $10k = $140B. Since Congress numbers are always 10 year numbers that’s 1.4 Trillion. That’s the max. And I guess that’s on the larger side.
Now how many of them will still have employer insurance coverage though? Likely quite a few. Half cuts that cost number way down. Currently 11.5/14M have employer coverage.
But yes there are some new taxes in there to cover these people. I’m on mobile but the link I shared earlier had the list.
I’m also okay with 60 because I am in favor of Medicare for all, and I think the most plausible way to get there is by degrees of lowering the age limit.
IANAHA, but doesn’t Medicare Part A pay first and then employer-sponsored insurance pays whatever Medicare doesn’t cover?
Yeah, the still-working folks won’t have Part B or D so there’s some savings, but the still working folks probably have much lower claims costs than the not-working folks.
It’s all just a matter of funding source, isn’t it? The “cost” is pretty much a function of services provided. Unless you have evidence the services provided are likely to rise, I don’t see much change in cost.
Whether it’s paid via Medicare or through the Ee plan…tastes the same to the society.
Costs are cheaper on Medicare since they pay much less than commercial for the same procedure. Another benefit in my mind of moving in degrees. Hard to argue for wholesale payment rate changes with just 60+ moving over, but easy for hospital lobby to argue that payments should go up if we brought everyone over all at once
Medicare is usually the secondary payer and the employer sponsored plan is usually the primary payer.
Agree. The hospital corps will want the same revenue if they are going to be providing the same amount of services. Could be a raise in Medicare, or it could be cost shifting to Ee and private insurance - which is pretty much what happens now any ways.
It’s going to get pretty ugly considering the number of rural hospitals going broke now. Hold onto your hats.
Yes, which is what I’m asking about. The employer’s funding source is a mix of employee and employer contributions.
Medicare’s funding source is taxes. Are taxes going up? How much and to whom?
Oh, for some reason I thought that wasn’t true for Part A. Ok. Then the cost to Medicare for the folks still working is small.
Current bill proposals on the tax increases (covers more than just the Medicare expansion)
The plan calls for top corporate and individual tax rates of 26.5% and 39.6%. The proposal includes a 3% surcharge on individual income above $5 million and a capital gains tax of 25%.
1 Like
Pretty sure that healthcare spending will go up ( how long has it been since it went down year over year?)
So yes, taxes and insurance premiums will go up. Same old same old.
Yeah, but this is going to be going up by significantly more than trend. MayanActuary answered the question I was asking though.
Why will healthcare spending go up significantly more? I mean in total.
I worked in financing health insurance companies. One of the difficult parts to get a handle on was how to set premiums. Predicting health insurance inflation was devilishly hard. Problem being, it was basically a political issue. Each year, the Medicare reimbursements were reset. The providers would take that as a given, then pass any resulting “losses” along to the private sector. If total HC inflation was 8% and Medicare reimbursement went up 5%…then the private went up 11%. This had the same effect as leveraging the impact on premiums. Guessing what Congress would do proved very hard.
Thiss was crucial when financing the companies. The stat surplus requirements (for ratings like S&P or AMBest.) we’re set as a % of net premiums. So if premiums went up 10%, then stat surplus targets went up 10%. Weirdly, even a 10% return on stat equity meant it all had to be retained by the stat entity. No dividends to the parent holding Corp. No dividends means no debt coverage. Disaster!
My claim wasn’t aggregate spending would go up; it was that Medicare spending would go up.
That said, increased coverage likely means that aggregate spending will also go up, but not by nearly as big a percentage… and it’s not necessarily bad that it would be going up.
And just because aggregate spending doesn’t change too much doesn’t mean that we can hand wave it away as no big deal. If the right hand has plenty of money and the left hand doesn’t but is responsible to pay… you have to figure out how to make the transfer.
french drop imo.
are these bills happening or not? I was following for a long time, but I cant figure out WTF they are doing anymore. Last I checked, we were getting the 1.5T inf Bill and a ~2T welfare/climate bill- all the dems had to do was stop pissing on their shoes.
I cant tell what the 2 senate hold outs are really thinking. Are they legit trying to negotiate in good faith? or are they just making up new issues every week knowing they can drag this out forever and sink the process? If its the later, its effectively apocalypses for the dem party, cant imagine they let this happen.
From what I read, which is admittedly relatively little, people think Manchin is probably negotiating in good faith because they understand his general stances on issues but people think Sinema is being obstructionist because she doesn’t seem to have consistent guiding principles (ala the comparative former “Maverick” Senator from AZ).
that would explain all the hate I am seeing for Sinema. Dems I talk to are really pissed at her right now. seems like for good reason.
Manchin seems to have a # in mind that both side are inching towards… maybe 2T.
but all for not if Sinema is hellbent on sinking the ship. whats her end game? blow up the current structure of the dem party and try to take her own share of power later on? she is relatively young, this could be a long term move for personal ambitions. seems she is incredibly smart or incredibly stupid.