Proposed Obamacare Replacement Hammers Early Retirees

Would the Republicans also introduce a law that prevents lay-offs and severances of employees in their early 60's? Especially longtime employees who then have to scramble to pay for healthcare until 65 years old!

Interesting piece, but what is not presented, and should be for a complete picture, is what has happened to health insurance premiums since the passage of Obamacare. The premiums for those of us in the private marketplace purchasing insurance from private carriers have increased by double digits nearly every year. The reasons are simple...our insurance premiums were raised to subsidize the plans that carriers were offering in the Obamacare system (that were experiencing substantial losses). This hidden tax was inherent to the design of the Obamacare legislation, but rarely discussed when the impact of Obamacare on the (pre-Obamacare) health care financing/insurance system is described.

Yes it is true that in many markets private insurance premiums increased a lot, as they did before Obamacare. Along with 20 million more Americans got health insurance for the first time. But the point of the article is that if passed, Obamacare is history. Trump/Ryancare will be on the hook for what happens next with the plan the President promised would be "something terrific". As I see it, almost everyone aged 50-64 is much, much worse off with the proposed plan - not so terrific.

This is definitely NOT a viable plan. The Insurance companies had a big hand in writing this bill--they have got to go. Medicare for all is what is needed ...if I am advised to keep private insurance until I can get on Medicare--then Medicare MUST work. Why not include those in 50-64 age group?

Call your representatives, and keep calling....this is unfair to those facing retirement in the near future. Obamacare is a disaster as well and did nothing for the self employed small business people who needed coverage. It also raised insurance deductibles so high that it almost seemed no one had insurance. What a mess this new proposal also is.there will be a big fight in Washington, DC. I have a front row seat since I live in DC.

I am 60, if Medicare becomes the insurance for "all" then the premiums will have to skyrocket. Is that fair to those 65 and older who played by the rules all their working years? If you are under 65, is it not your responsibility to work out someway to cover yourself and your family? Where did this recent phenomenon that healthy working people expect the government to save them if they cannot meet their responsibility in this and many other issues come from?

Trump played everyone: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-insurance-mulvaney_us_58cea736e4b00705db502fef?mvq1e5ddvz6txd2t9&

Ditto. Thanks Louise.

In all of my life I have never seen a U.S. president and congress sell out the majority of Americans for the sake of a handful of very wealthy people! The proposed Trumpcare eliminates the tax levied on the very wealthy and on the Insurance companies that benefited from the 20 -30 million new participants.
I am ashamed to live in a country that puts money and power before its people. Most civilized countries are going to a no charge healthcare program that everyone participates and everyone benefits.
Governments arte there for the people not to give giant tax loopholes

Keep the ACA as it is! It is very workable. Improve it as needed and lets work towards all the people in the U.S having healthcare at an affordable price.

Medicare and Medicaid cost will NOT go up as more people are added. Overasll the cost will go down as more and more people are insured as the ACA has proven over the past 7 years in existence.
State manipulation of the increases granted to insurers has falsely led people to proclaim it was at fault. California for example only had a 2% increase as a Blue State the government did its job. Red states trying to cause the ACA to fail allowed double digit increases. Shame on them

The cost of insurance is not supported by the expense. It does not cost the hospital 2000 a day for a bed! It does not Cost the Hospital 2000 for an MRI and on and on! The two drivers to medical costs are 1) Insurance companies wanting exhorbitant premiums and shareholder returns , 2)Hospitals charging ridiculous fees for mundane services. Finally the pharmaceutical companies charging U.S customer 10 to 20 times more than international countries for the same drugs.

Don't fall prey to lies our elected officials toss your way! Research them and understand this issue more deeply.

Nobel Prize winner Angus Deaton stated clearly what is wrong. The American health care system “seems optimally designed for rent seeking and very poorly designed to improve people’s health.” And nothing is going to get better until we tackle that problem head on.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/01/debate-health-care-yet-omits-elephants-room-excessive-costs-due-terrible-incentives-pricing-administrative-costs-pharma-looting.html

Louise, please take your political comments to another site. This is not a political site to express your resentment. This site is meant to be informative and helpful.

LMB - Unfortunately, healthcare is the topic of this article and that IS a political topic. Should not be, but such is the sad state of affairs in our country. I would love to hear any fresh ideas for fixing the healthcare system from the medical field - any docs out there with thoughts? I have read that the American Medical Association does not support the Trump / Ryancare plan. They must have some ideas that would be more fair to all - docs, hospitals, drug companies, and most importantly, patients.

LMB I am not the author of the article 'White House Admits Trump ‘Insurance For Everybody’ Guarantee Isn’t Going To Happen' posted in the Huffington Post. Also, I remember that President Trump promised us low cost, better insurance and it would cover everyone. It was going to be terrific. I don't believe I am expressing my "resentment' as you say. I am an Obamacare (ACA) insured person. Our President, when campaigning, said over and over again his new health care plan was going to cover everyone, be better and cost less. As it is written now, it will hurt Seniors and cost them 5 times more than it is costing them now. I can say that it is disappointment of promises not kept. Furthermore, this discussion is about 'Proposed Obamacare Replacement Hammers Early Retirees' so it brings up subject matter that is informative and also sparks opinions good and bad that everyone should be able to express. Others on this discussion topic have also expressed disappointment and are skeptical of the proposed TrumpRyan/care. By the way, raising the cost for insurance for seniors 5 times what they are paying now is a negative. Not keeping campaign promises is a negative.

Comments to all. Frankly, everyone's comments are all well informed and thoughtful.
As a recently retired provider and now atypical Medicare care patient, healthcare Is, as they say, ,as they say, very conplicated. I personally support the ACA, but, IMHO, it has been a financial problem for a number of reasons.
One of the biggest has been the plan's inability to attract more healthy, younger subscribers, whether it be throughl better incentives or harsher penalties. Result, an unbalanced high risk pool.
I still believe in it and just think it needs tweaks.
I use the analogy of car insurance. In most states, if you own and drug a car, you have to carry insurance on it, for collision, liability. It's basically sacrificing a bit of personal n freedom for the sake of security of the overall population.
Imagine you are in a car accident in a state without mo fault.your Car gets wrecked, but the other driver is uninsured. Get it. You're screwed.
That's what will happen if this replacement deal goes through. In the end, many will not get insurance. They will just go to the Emergency room, hospitals will go back to the free care pool, that will raise our taxes anyway, not to mention, have a lot more for sick people.
You are all going to pay either way. Don't kid yourselves.
I am a free market capitalist, but this has gotten to the point if my next w leaning towards a Medicare for all option, that is age and income based, with incentives for the private sector to compete against.
The sea of too much central government power troubles me greatly, but the politicians have driven me to this position. All thoughts welcome.

Thank you Steven, I agree with you 100% Also, healthcare is very complicated but why do most countries outside of the United States able to make it less complicated? ?

Here's a thought - maybe the resources in the government that develop these healthcare plans are not experts? How about we ask representatives from United Healthcare Group, Aetna, Humana, Anthem and Cigna to get together and come up with a comprehensive medical, dental, prescription plan at a reasonable premium to people? Of course, their plan will provide ways for them to maximize their earnings - that is why they are in business - they are not non-profits. Then let the so called government experts use that plan as their basis and tear into it to remove/reduce SOME of the profit to insurance, drug companies, hospitals, doctors and all type of providers and provide even lower premiums. Having just retired from working many years at one of these large healthcare insurance companies, I am confident there are a lot of great strategic minds there and they probably know better than any of us what is really needed to make healthcare work for all.

The problem is also that medicine is a "business" in the USA and not a right. I am a former nurse and I must tell you that I know not one Canadian or European would trade places with us when it comes to healthcare coverage. Only in the USA can one go bankrupt by getting sick through no fault of your own...why should one have to give up a business or a livelihood to a greedy insurance/healthcare system? Everyone deserves basic benefits--the best doctors do not have to even accept insurance as it now stands. First in line to have to deal with this proposed coverage is the elected officials who think it is good enough for everyone else as they enjoy their gold plated insurance plans paid for by us, the taxpayers! They should have to use whatever they propose for any common American. People better start looking into alternative medicine and eating healthy, getting sleep and exercise..it is their only hope not to end up thousands of dollars in debt.

BeckyN, I agree with your suggestion that politicians are not experts in healthcare and that they should put their heads together with representatives from health insurance, physicians, hospitals, drug companies.

Steven, this why I believe in a single payer system for hospitalization as in Part A of medicare. I also believe that we desperately need to address the cost of prescriptions. But I do not believe in forcing citizens to buy health insurance. I do not know if many of you are aware that for over 50 years the United Kingdom has had socialized medicine but it is also possible to pay for medical services outside the socialized system and receive care. For me, this is definitely a separation of the classes. But regardless, my point is that socialized medicine does not ensure the best or immediate care. As witnessed by our own VA system which next to Medicaid is the closet to socialized medicine we have. Medicare you can still choose between traditional and advantage. BTW, in England there is a waiting list not based on need but by age. My mother -in-law who loved the system when she was a young adult changed her thinking when she entered her 60's.

Sandy Z, I disagree. Health care should not be a political topic and that is why we all are in this pickle now. People want the government to do everything for them. Where did this thinking come from and why? Growing up in the 50's my parents only had hospitalization not full coverage. Somehow, and believe me I lived in the inner city with one part time working parent, my parents paid the doctor. I do admit we did not go to the Doctor for every ailment or for every fever. One time not even a broken ankle. Maybe we need to rethink going to the Doc and the mal practice insurance they must carry. I understand that this is not the 50's and we must live in the present but maybe we need to rethink what the government's role really should be.

What is the best Medicare company to go with in Fla? They each push their own...isn't there an agent who represents all and can give you honest answers? We just moved from another state and were told we have to switch and haven't a clue who to go with. thank you WE are just on A, B and D

Brenda,
Ehealth.com https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/medicare is wonderful website to help with choosing a Medicare plan. After you explore it, call the number given and a counselor will answer and help with all of your questions. It was recommended to me a few years back and it made this process almost stress free. They will send you emails with plans for your state and comparisons, or if you talk with them on the phone while you are on their site they will explain what you are looking at. What was the greatest was the counselor who answers the phone is one you can stick with through the whole process, and I called her several times over the course of a week. I even applied for Part B over the phone with ehealth. They filled out the application electronically with me on the phone and I got a welcoming email from the insurance company I chose and my insurance card in the mail soon after. The first phone call took about 40 minutes, they don't rush you and I had a million questions. So best to have your questions ready and a cup of coffee in your hand because it does take time but it does get done.

LMB healthcare should not be a political topic is an opinion, healthcare is a political topic is a fact.

Yes, the healthcare in the US is political. I think the big reason is the huge cost of healthcare. Other countries negotiate healthcare and pharma prices. Trump promised that everyone would have healthcare. And he promised he would get the healthcare and pharma companies to lower prices. Well he met with them and changed his mind. The politicians are getting money from these companies so they are working for them - not us.

This proposed plan is just going to take from the poor and give to the rich. Why in the world would we give tax breaks to the wealthy and the insurance companies in a health care plan? My guess is because that is who the GOP is working for.

The big part of having good health care is that preventive care is much less expensive than the care after you are sick. If this plan goes through I guess more people will be using the ER as their primary doctor. It seems to me that we are going backwards with almost everything today. For a wealthy country we surely do not take very good care of our citizens who need help. And it looks like it will get worse rather than better.

I think Elsie pretty much summed it up
I'm a free market capitalist thinker, and do believe that the ACA needs tweaking, but I'll only bore you with some of the details.
For the ACA to continue to function, a lot of moving parts need to be addressed.there are too few young, healthier people to balance out the high riskers,due to poor incentives, small penalties, take your pick.
The r latiobship to having an individual mandate and Medicaid expansion upsets the republicans, etc.
After years asa solo practitioner, now retired I'm so sick of it all, that is just Medicare available to all, rates based on age and income, provide the private sector incentives to compete and treat it like car insurance. You own and drive a car, you have to have insurance.

LMB,
Good points, particularly noting that tortxreform is another part of this crazy puzzle. Docs are stuck between"cost control" and knowing that if they don't order every rest, there's a lawyer out there, justrwady to question their thoroughness.
Your comments are very detailed, but left me a bit confused. First you say single payer, then you imply having competition.
I believe in choice, I don't trust big govt, but Medicare works. The pay is mediocre, but one can earn a decent living if they work hard. But the private sector needs to have enough incentives to offer a competitive oeuvre, I.e, Medicare advantage plans. What not make all of this available to everyone?

Trumpcare must be put down! This poorly thoughout POS needs to be scrapped! Not only does it harm millions of Americans it will result in the loss of thousands of good paying healthcare jobs. Jobs that our corporations have not figured away to outsource yet!

The ACA was a great document that over time needs to be massaged and improved upon! I am afraid that the republicans hatred for our President Obama cast lies and distortions regarding the healthcare delivered by the ACA!

Bottomline the ACA (Obamacare) is a much better and much fairer plan than the ill thought out Trumpcare.

Demand your congressman vote DOWN the Trumpcare joke of a "healthcare" plan... it is a death sentence for the elderly and poor!

I trust the federal government much more than the State governments State governments are to easily bought and paid for by special interest... Just look at North Carolina as an example!

What bothers me is that they are rushing this repeal and replace thing so fast that there isn't enough thought on what will make it a great replacement. Two months into his presidency and they have a plan? It took a long time to get the kinks worked out of Obamacare and it still needs work.

All should be required to participate in it as this is the only way insurance works to keep down costs. Most people are going to have a need for health insurance during their lifetime. Old people aren't the only ones with health issues. Plenty of young people come down with cancer, broken bones, problem pregnancies and on and on. One other thing that is a bit puzzling is why do they allow parents to carry a child on health insurance till age 26? The age of a legal adult is 21.

You'd think President Trump would want this health reform to be a glowing triumph to his presidency. From what I have been hearing it will forever tarnish his legacy. His attitude towards this repeal and replace is 'just get it done' and move onto other things. This is far too important to spend a total of 8 weeks to come up with a glowing new plan that is "going to be better, cost less and cover everyone and is gong to be terrific" President Trumps words, not mine.

Steven K and Ron, I am in agreement with your thoughts. The Advantage plan makes sense. It is in place. It isn't a Gold plan but it is a start. From there it could be expanded. So frustrated they are in such a hurry to make bad decisions. I will be on Medicare in 16 months so it may or may not affect me personally. However, Obamacare was there when my Hub and I needed it and I would like to see other people be secure knowing they have health insurance when they need it.

If a car needs a muffler replacement you typically don't junk the car if it is only a few years old, you FIX IT! Is fixing it such a hard concept to understand.

For Jemmie on 3/21/17 RE : https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/medicare
Please note you are recommending a "for profit" website, their advice is designed to sell you something.

From the disclosure at the above website:
eHealth Medicare contains information and access to Medicare insurance plans for people who are eligible for Medicare. It is operated by eHealthInsurance Services, Inc., a licensed health insurance agency certified to sell Medicare products.
Medicare.com is a non-government resource that is privately owned and operated by eHealthInsurance Services, Inc.
The purpose of this communication is the solicitation of insurance. Contact will be made by an insurance agent/producer or insurance company.

I would be cautious in promoting the conclusions from the CBO. To begin with, the AHCA is a 3 part legislative process. The real meat of the legislation which will reduce costs through more competition and have more plans to chose from will be coming in the later sections. If nothing is done, Obamacare will self implode.

The AHCA is not perfect but the alternatives are worse. In this period of political polarization, what chance is there in the near future that the Democrats are going to control both houses of Congress and the Presidency? Nothing better than the AHCA is on the horizon. Our choices are 1. Obamacare being repealed with no replacement being passed for the foreseeable future. 2. Obamacare not being repealed but dying off with no replacement. 3. A more Draconian Plan being passed by Republicans. If politicians, including Democrats, truly care about citizens that are in need of insurance coverage and some assistance, they will support the AHCA passage. When the make-up of Congress and/or the Presidency changes in the future then the AHCA can be revisited. Something is better than nothing in the interim for those in need. Put politics aside for now.

I agree with Steven Kaufman. We are trying to reinvent the wheel by passing this bill as well as continuing to use Obamacare.
We have a single payer system in place already. It's called Medicare and while not perfect, it works pretty well. Plus we eliminate all the bureaucracy by having state run plans that include multiple insurers and types of plans.
I suggest devise a subset of Medicare for those under 65 that provides affordable base coverage with options that include lower income based premiums as well as "supplemental plans" for those who can afford more coverage. Bringing private insurers into this type plan would help them to gain critical mass (a national plan) and build historical claims experience that helps them stay in for the long run.
I'd forget tax credits - lower income, lower premium.

To me the tragedy in this latest plan is that nobody in government is trying to think out of the box. We are the only major industrial country in the world that does not have some kind of universal health coverage for all citizens. Yet we pay far more on health care than any other country per capita, with often middling results and millions left uncovered. Republican plans cut taxes for the wealthy while depriving anyone with less than middle income of health insurance. In addition to the tragedy of unnecessary deaths and suffering, we all pay when people have no recourse but to go to the ER, often for life threatening illnesses that a preventative care visit could have detected in time and cured for far less money. Democrats want universal coverage for everyone, a worthy but more expensive goal than many in the country are willing to pay for. They need to move toward the center to help find a solution.

Why not think a little different, or smaller. Smaller: consider mandatory catastrophic coverage for everyone - it wouldn't be that expensive - Kip Hagoplan and Dana Goldman in National Affairs think 209 million Americans could be covered in such a plan for $2000 a person. Individuals would be responsible for routine medical expenses/insurance. This is similar to what works very well in Singapore. Or different: Provide a basic counterpart to Medicare for everyone not in that system. Everyone must participate, but you can add on optional coverages like you can get with Medicare. Or not so different, study the ways Obamacare could be improved and make those fixes.

The point: We need some type of universal health care coverage, it is a basic human right in a developed country of ours. Lets put aside the set positions and try to find a creative way to do it.

If you look at the numbers for 2015 for Medicare the total cost was $646.2 billion. Based on the 2015 enrollments numbers of 54.3 million Medicare recipients, the average annual cost per person was $11,900 for Medicare As a 57 year old if I were to lose my employer coverage I don't think I could get a comparable policy for much less than $11,900 per year and if rates rise as expected I certainly won't be able to. Why not open Medicare up to folks under 65 at the full cost to operate. Even if costs per person didn't come down with additional enrollment (which they likely would as younger healthier folks joined), if I had the option to buy into Medicare at that price at least there would be some competition that the private insurers would have to recognize and respect.

Howard and Fred - sorry to be somewhat redundant, I didn't see your comments before posting mine.

Maybe they need to start thinking about the excess costs of funding American health care, and proceed by means of heavily taxing the "sin trades," for instance, setting up national lotteries, taxing marijuana etc (whether or not they make it legal), adding taxes to anything that is currently not a life necessity, is addictive and harmful to health and personal and public safety, and that makes a lot of money with the result that it negativelyaffects the health and financial balance of the indulger . Take all that un-taxed illegal money away from ALL the underground "sin" economies, take all the net worth of those illegally gaining from the running of such businesses that are not paying their US taxes on it (whether foreign or domestic sourced people or products brought and sold here in the US, and whether considered legal or illegal) and put it all into a decent low-cost healthcare system that everyone in the US can afford. The crooks and their illegal enterprises thus unwittingly get to subsidize that part of our healthcare that isn't affordable by paying taxes set by the government and that depend on how much the healthcare system needs to be cheap and functional.

For instance, Colorado is awash in funds from "medical marijuana" which is, as everyone knows, not really always used for real medical issues by most who are able to gain access to it.. Take the gains from all of this stuff, whether drinking, gambling, the drug trade, etc. and turn the situation around to where it is doing the public some good as a whole instead of it paying for cartel Maseratis parked at billionnaire villas in the Caribbean.

The funding exists for all that is needed, it just needs someone with the guts to do the re-appropriation via common sense and lawmaking that makes a positive impact on the general public.

Over the past few years I have come to understand AARP and its soleless methods of selling their insurance. I have not nor would I ever trust AARP or any survey conducted by them since they have a built it prejudice. Actually, I am surprised that this site chose to even discuss this issue since I always considered it to be a non-political site. I guess I was wrong after all.

Higher income people already pay all the Federal taxes asking people to responsible for themselves is not a tax cut for the rich.
Doctors are paid $400,000-$500,000 per year and don't want to take a cut in pay. Of course they oppose less funding for healthcare. AARP sells healthcare insurance and is a liberal lobby group of course they like subsidies and Obamacare. Live healthy
stop smoking, lose weight, exercise and don't be an necessary burden on society so the truly needy (disabled) can get help.

Khem.

Interesting thinking!!

You all don't realize how HORRIBLE Obamacare is until you've been slammed by it. My husband was out of work for 14 months at age 60, MADE to take that crap insurance in 2015 and then when he got a job and had insurance for the last 3 months of 2015, we are now being made to pay back over $4600 for it. What a scam - what a horrible plan and President. Not supposition and fake news but a real life tragedy.

Dian, sorry to hear you have to repay but the Federal Poverty Levels (guidelines) are very straight forward in how much you can earn (family income) to receive subsidies. If you go over that income cliff, you have to pay back. That is why those who are receiving subsidies must be very aware of every penny of income. You are also required to call your Marketplace to report a change in income or other changes. Not sure if there is anything you can do now, but my tax person who is a CPA told me that if we should go over the income cliff, we could open IRA's to divert some money. If your husband had a 401K he could have diverted money there. Also, Health Savings Accounts (HSA). Maybe charitable donations, not sure about that one. I am on Obamacare and can only withdraw a certain amount out of my IRA's per year along with my SS and Hubs SS and small pension. All I can say is anyone on obamacare who receives a subsidy must be very aware of every penny of income to stay under the radar screen and not to go over the income cliff. This is the 2015 federal poverty levels for 2015. https://obamacare.net/2015-federal-poverty-level/

http://time.com/money/4650470/obamacare-marketplace-plan-subsidy-save-taxes/

Howard, Goid points.when I was on Medicare st 65 and still working, my premium was 3x higher,based than n my income, which was only fair. After a year of retirement, it dropped down to the standard rate, I do gave a A and B , a medigapplan and a part d drug plan, as well.
I chis Medicare care for the choice. There are two Kentucky if advantage , one stop shopping plans, from m private insurers, that are available. That's a personal choice.'anyway, like I said, it seems so much ch easier than just st tweak what has been out there for years.
This repeal and replace is just not necessary. FWIW.

I don't think of health care/insurance as so much of a political issue, but, most importantly, as a moral issue. A decent society should provide for its poorer and elderly populations, especially as their health and medical needs are concerned. It's been said in this discussion that the U.S. is the only major country that doesn't provide universal health care. That is true. Why is that? Why do some people with good health insurance, including Medicare, not want that to also be available to those less fortunate? I hope we would all abide by the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I find it totally repulsive that millions of poor citizens with Medi-Cal { California } and Medicaid throughout the country could lose their coverage. This is not who we are as Americans.

I'm surprised there are people who don't think the insurance companies have already had input into this bill! That's what lobbyists do! As "60 Minutes" reported some years ago, the members of Congressmen and their staff members who wrote the horrible Medicare Part D legislation signed into law by George W in 2003 got 6-figure jobs with drug companies a few years later. That legislation actually FORBIDS the Federal govt from negotiating lower prices with drug companies.

Dian: That doesn't sound like a tragedy to me. If you had a health crisis when he was out of work, being made to carry insurance would have been a blessing for you (and for taxpayers and others using the health care system who would have ended up paying for your medical costs if you didn't have insurance). When he got a job, you then paid a fair cost based on the program. The repayment obigation based on income wasn't a secret, so it shouldn't have been a surprie to either of you.

You didn't HAVE to pay for Obamacare. You could have paid a small penalty for not carrying health insurance at all, or chosen COBRA or to buy other coverage. No medical insurance is free (heck, my own copayment for medical insurance is about $600 a month for one person, and I work for a large company). The ACA guaranteed that you'd be able to get coverage, and didn't claim to be a welfare program that would provide you with cheap coverage and no pain. And I bet you were happy that it was available as an option. If your spouse loses his job again, what will you do without its availability?

I obvously agree with Clyde, Bubbajog and others. I'll be paying close attention to the votes on this issue. I don't think it's a Party issue. In my view, it's an American issue, and I will be watching who votes to make life harder for Americans.

I am appalled that the GOP is trying to slip this so called healthcare plan into law. They just keep saying the same thing over and over. Why haven't these politicians worked to fix the ACA? The American people do not want this GOP plan. It will hurt the poor, disabled, seniors and the very young. And the tax breaks for the wealthy and the insurance companies - why is this in a healthcare plan? Why isn't this money going into the healthcare plan?

I find it very interesting that most people do not want this plan. They want ACA fixed.

I live in a fairly rural area. I have always had difficulty finding a medical provider in my insurance. ACA didn't change that at all. All of that is decided by the insurance companies. I wonder how this plan will change that so everyone can see whoever they want? That is not going to happen.

Now with the changes they are making an insurance policy does not have to cover maternity, pediatric, prescription drugs or hospitalization. And the GOP thinks that is what people want? What would the insurance cover? For a group of mainly old white men who want to get the federal government out of healthcare they sure have a lot of things that won't be important to be covered. And a lot of that has to do with woman's healthcare.

This frantic race to repeal ACA on the anniversary of the ACA is just pitiful. Shame on the politicians who are supposed to be working for us. Hmm after 7 years - who knew health insurance was so difficult.

Sorry this is so long. I am so upset over these awful laws they are trying to pass. I am one of those retirees who aren't eligible for Medicare yet. I have a whole lot to be worried about.

I was generally very happy with the ACA. It provided affordable insurance for my wife and I after a job loss about a year before we got on Medicare. It has been demonized for years by the GOP. They keep telling us there trying to save us from this "horrible" law!! Fix it don't replace it!

"they" had to pass obamacare to see what was in it. What the media?... says, and what is real, are likely to be two different things. It's never-the-less, a wait and see for us out here, It's too bad it's politics,

The American Health Care Act is a disgrace. Hopefully Washington D.C. and all Congressional Districts are listening to the roar of the American people. Now is the time for Republicans and Democrats to work together towards adjusting and strengthening The Affordable Care Act.

I agree with Clyde and that is why from a nurse who has seen it all from the seventies until now in the medical world, I had to leave medicine as it got me so depressed. I have heard of doctors who made sick children on Medicaid wait longer for treatment than a well insured child--made me angry!! Not everyone has good insurance that pays well. if we all had the same coverage--then it would be a non issue. We all should have good coverage and we as Americans deserve that. Universal insurance such as Medicare for all. Coverage and premiums could be tweaked for younger Americans. BY the way, old age does not equate to sickness. I have seen many older people who are in much better health than the young kids who were raised on diet coke and McDonalds hamburgers. We saw and were shocked by young high school football players who dropped dead on the football field in my nursing career. Many of the men in their twenties required a cardiac clearance before a surgery! I also saw a tri-athlete die after competing in the third phase of the competition, the swimming portion. He was not yet 35. So don't buy it--just because you have aged does not mean you are sick or will get sick. We all need insurance coverage and a requirement that physicians' must accept the insurance as a condition for licensure. Otherwise they will always choose to accept only higher paying plans. My husband was a physician and a surgeon. I have seen it on both sides of the fence. A universal system is the way to go.

So happy ACHA is not moving forward. It was a horrible bill that was in fact designed to provide tax relief to the wealthy. Too many would have lost, while too few would have gained. ACA should not be repealed, but reworked. We need the President to work on this, rather than hoping it will implode. So sad that so many hated Obamacare, but didn't realize it was their own ACA health insurance. Ideology is dangerous.

The proposed legislation is dead for now. However, we must remain vigilant because this President does not suffer defeat well. He says the ACA is imploding and, out of revenge, I believe he and the Congress will try to strangle the funding for the ACA so that it does fail. If you support the ACA, let your Congress member know that and that you expect Congress to keep their hands off of it unless they want to work to fix any issues and make it better.

My Congressman would have been a No voted had the bill come to the floor yesterday. Not because he thought it harmed the poor, the elderly, etc but because he is a Freedom Caucus member and he didn't think the bill was harsh enough. It would be wonderful if they would work together on the ACA but I don't see that happening.

Well the GOP health care bill failed and Millions of people are now still forced to pay for health care they can not use while in fact they are buy health care for others. Unless you have experienced this you cannot relate what it feels like to be told you have to fork other 650 a month with a 6500k deductible before you are allowed to the 350 co payment for the ER what is more none of your lab work is covered. And for those of you who say that the GOP bill would have been worse for those 50 to 64, the new premiums for Obamacare have not come out for 2018. I agree the GOP bill was far from perfect and they did a lousy job of selling it, but with input from our age bracket we could have forced the GOP to tweek it. But now when those new premiums come out, let us see how many seniors choose to the penalty because the now 650 unaffordable premium is now 800 a month premium. Instead of making this a hate Rep bill why couldn't all of us made this, "I cannot afford these premiums under either bill" Give us a bill we can live with! But again, unless you are directly affected by the unaffordable," affordable health care " you have no conception of what is like to be told by the government you can afford 650 for health care when you know you cannot because you still have a mortgage and a car payment all which is not taken in consideration when the government tells you what you can afford to pay for health insurance.

LMB,
Good comments as usual.
The critical fork in the road is now here. Do the dems and reps get together to tweak the ACA's problems, to serve the America people, or do we go back to the I won, you list nonsense iof this non functional government.
I, for one, would recommend that a half dozen moderate governors, go down to D.C., and, in a bipartisan manner, help these fools out.

The American Health Care Act went down in flames as it should have. They wanted to eliminate the 10 essential health benefits which is a provision of Obamacare. Here’s the full list, from Healthcare.gov:

Outpatient care without a hospital admission, known as ambulatory patient services
Emergency services
Hospitalization
Pregnancy, maternity, and newborn care
Mental health and substance use disorder services, including counseling and psychotherapy
Prescription drugs
Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices, which help people with injuries and disabilities to recover
Laboratory services
Preventive care, wellness services, and chronic disease management
Pediatric services, including oral and vision care for children

So, how is this an improvement over Obamacare? Yes, Obamacare needs tweeking and lower premiums but what they proposed would have made it very hard for seniors to afford. As it was predicted to increase prices for seniors by 5 times. Not to mention, what is the point of insurance if there is no hospital coverage, no prescription drugs, no lab services, no emergency service and the other things listed? This article will further explain the pitfalls of the American Health Care Act. http://www.vox.com/2017/3/23/15031322/the-fight-over-essential-health-benefits-explained

I have Obamacare and it is working for me. My Hub went onto Medicare and I am actually paying more for it (for one person) than when the two of us were on it together. I am sucking it up till I am eligible for Medicare. Hub had major surgery while on Obamacare and although we did pay a chunk of medical costs ourselves, without it we would have been faced with close to $100K in medical bills. I agree 100% Obamacare needs a major tune up and I hope they start working on it sooner than later.

ACA will implode on it's own. The last few years foretell the future. My wife was forced on it when a major,international co. cancelled insurance for it's retirees. She is not quite 65, she has a deductable of $7,500, a premium of $635 per month, so for $14,770 per year she has in effect, no insurance. Of course, we could have paid the penalty, but.....

So many talk about the expense of ACA plans but dang, insurance is just plain expensive for everyone...businesses for their employees, and those like me who pay for private insurance. I elected to stick with my private insurance which I've purchased as a self employed person for 12 years. I am now 61 and thought of switching to ACA last year but due to election decided to stay with my grandfathered private plan thru Blue Cross. My insurance is $500/mo with a $10,000 deductible and I am a totally healthy person with very few claims in 12 years. ACA would save me about $100/mo but my options are so limited in AZ it was not worth the risk and I figured the Republicans would tear it apart if elected.

I remember when I took out my private insurance the company made me sign a waiver on my entire spine from coverage for 5 years because 2 years earlier I had seen a chiropractor for adjustments to keep headaches away. So, when people talk about putting those with pre-existing conditions in a high risk pool, they are not talking about situations like mine where insurance companies just decide that they won't cover due to such silliness. Someone had to take some power away from insurance companies regarding eligibility and coverage for basic benefits.

We need a strong group of bipartisan representatives to strengthen ACA. We know what the issues are, so fix them! Republicans have been so focused on repeal and now they know how important insurance is - stop playing the partisan games. For 7 years all we have heard about is repeal, just think if they would have been working on viable solutions all that time! I think a buy in option to Medicare for those 60-64 might be good, I would do it today for $500/mo with a low deductible. Many in this age group are forced out of jobs and take part time jobs with no benefits. I do agree with President Trump that this is complicated, he seemed surprised by that....I think most people aren't.
I think this is "lesson learned" and will probably keep them from messing with Medicare.

Jeff L. I have no idea how your insurance works but I am alone on my insurance like your wife as of March 1st. Hub just went on Medicare this month and also has Plan B, Plan F and Plan D so we hope to have all the bills covered for him.

I have Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield
This is what my insurance card says:
Office visit (regular doctor) $35 per visit (I pay)
Specialist $50 per visit (I pay)
Deductible $4,000 (Individual) $8,000 (Family)
Out of pocket max $7,150 (Individual) $14,300 (Family)
Rx Tier 1 $5 (I pay)
Rx Tier 2 $35 (I pay)
Rx Tier 3 $60 (I pay)
Rx Tier 4 20%

Hub had a blood test in January and I have the bill in front of me. The test cost $102.71, Insurance paid $100.10 and we owe $2.61. We both have been to specialists and paid $50 each time and that is it. Sometimes the specialist includes some charges the insurance won't pay so I have to cover that.

So not sure why your wife wouldn't get anything paid for. Maybe you should call your wife's provider to see if there is some misunderstanding. Look to see if her insurance card has office visit information/Rx information.

My insurance costs $950 a month, I get a subsidy of $440 a month and pay $510 a month for my policy.

Don't forget folks there is still private insurance for those who have lost coverage for one reason or another. It may be worth looking into for some. When I lost my coverage COBRA was cheaper than Obamacare.

To add to Staci's post, insurance from private companies must also abide by the ACA provision that pre-existing conditions cannot be used to raise rates or deny coverage. Under the ACA, pre-existing conditions cannot be considered, period, for Obamacare or any insurance you buy on the private market. Probably one of the best changes brought about by the ACA. So look at private insurance as well as Obamacare. We did, but found Obamacare less expensive, though not cheap.

Staci, That is not always the case. If you did not have COBRA then your options may have been very limited. And, when COBRA runs out you may also be limited. I only have private ins. because I had it before ACA and I elected to stay with a grandfathered plan rather than go with ACA. ACA plan would have been cheaper after the subsidy. If I had gone with ACA, I could not go back to private insurance plan. If I were in the market today, my options are ACA as an individual and in my county in AZ there is only one plan offered. There are definitely problems that need to be worked out with ACA.

There are different plans available in different states, here, there is but one plan available. It's blue cross/blue shield. There are too many disparities. There is no reason for such costs, things WERE cheaper before aca.
My wife is NOT on medicare.

Here is Washington DC, while the Congressmen have great healthcare, their staffs have been thrown on ACA. The problem is with a $5000-10,000 deductible, they still feel uncovered. To make it worse, if your physician will not accept ACA insurance policies--then what do you do? Here in DC most of the best physicians do not accept any insurance. Not even Medicare. They are still busy. Some are concierge doctors and charge a yearly fee.
The Insurance companies call all the shots and the surgery practice I worked with got tired of it all and chucked all insurance plans and worked with the patients. Half of their fees were due prior to the surgery and the other half within 30 days after the surgery had been done and the insurance was filed. From the reimbursement, it was hoped the patient could pay the balance and any portion not covered.
The first thing Canada did when they went to a Universal plan was to outlaw the insurance companies and they negotiate very strongly with the pharmaceuticals to keep costs down. If it works there, it can work here.

LMB - in an earlier post you were complaining about having to pay for other people's healthcare while not getting any benefit yourself. Now you are saying you will opt out and hope you don't need to go to a hospital. So which is it? Do you want to be able to show up at a hospital and get free treatment because you have no insurance (in other words let the rest of us pay for you) or do you prefer we change the law to allow the hospital to just say "sorry no insurance no treatment, you lose"

John C, in an earlier post you mentioned Medicare as an option for older adults to join in. Bernie Sanders was just on TV talking about Medicare for all and he also mentioned it when he was campaigning. I don't know how all that will work out dut to the fact that we pay Medicare tax during our working years and get to use it at age 65. I really think that Medicare is a good footprint to base a new healthcare program on. It would solve some issues like buying what you wanted. Part A is free, Part B right now is $134.00 a month. Then if you decided to buy a drug plan or other medigap plans that would be up to each person to decide if they could afford it. Or, the Advantage plan which is more regimented.

Louise:

All the codes that insurers use are based on Medicare codes devised by the Federal government. We do not have to reinvent the wheel to offer Medicare for all. The system already exists. Many insurers refuse to pay anything above what Medicare allows or very little more. We would have to tweak it for younger members, but since they have longevity on their side, the money that they would pay in tax would greatly increase the pool of money to pay the claims. There is no reason that every American should not have a universal plan. We are almost there anyway if your doctor does not belong to your plan and why should we have to get insurance from employers? It merely chains people to jobs they do not like to have insurance coverage. A universal plan would be mobile. I am sure that many other countries look at the mess we have in making medicine a big business....and just shake their heads. The biggest fear of a foreign visitor is that they will get sick or have an accident while here and they be stuck with a huge medical bill. Many carry supplemental but inexpensive insurance plans--even to come over from Canada just for the day.

Jennifer, what you say makes perfect sense. But, how do we turn this ship around? There is no forward thinking! We are stuck in a rut. No compromise on either side. It would have been a breath of fresh air if Paul Ryan had offered such a plan and had presented how it would be done step by step. Nothing can be done overnight but if he made it a 4 or 5 year plan to transition over. That would have been great.

John, I do not want to pay for others. And if I were to go to the hospital, I will be billed. No one will pick up the tab. Yes they sign you up but what makes you think I will not be responsible? ACA does not work that way. If they say now that my premium is not under 600 a month that will not change. Neither will the 6500k deductible I will be responsible before the 350 per day kicks in.
In my state we have three companies, two which the hospital is 30 miles away and the other one is the county one which is like a needle in haystack trying to find doctors who have privileges under ACA. Hell the doctors have begun to drop out of Humana medicare around here also. But back on track, should I be taken ill while not in my state under ACA I will be responsible for the entire bill. BTW, most HMO's do not cover out state hospitals must be an emergency. I mention this because ACA resembles HMOs but as not as great with the coverage.

Medicare for all is socialized medicine. Our taxes will definitely be through the roof and middle class working families would not be able to afford another tax. Have a heart for the younger struggling working family.

We have the ACA it's done. Now let's see how this turn out. I will bet you my rates get another increase next year or my deductible will increase. I don't see anymore discussion on this issue as it is the law of the land.

You really need to research the state that you are planning to retire to. For example , I have lived in California for 15 yrs and my husband and I had a very good plan through my employer covering everything including dental for $300 monthly. After being layed off we did qualify for expanded medicaid with no monthly cost to us and more than 3 policies to choose from. For the higher income earners there is a blue cross policy for $300 monthly . We have been happy with Obama care. We will not be high income retirees and won't need to file taxes and do plan to move to Oregon Coast where the cost of living is much lower than southern California. You do have choices .....and perhaps living minimally in retirement is the best way to go but I'm sure that might be too much of a sacrifice for many .

Most civilized nations have a single payer model for healthcare that is taken from t he income tax they pay. People in those countries do not have to pay anything for healthcare out of their pocket! The healthcare is bountiful and the services are open and free. These same countries pay up to 1/10th the cost Americans pay from the same drugs.
In America we have defaulted to allow for profit companies to rape us daily. $50 dollars a pill for pills that are made by the millions is pure profit going to the exec huge salaries and bonuses.
Hospitals charge ridiculous rates for basic service like MRI's and Xrays when the equipment has been paid for years ago! Why because they are allowed to!

Single payer solutions such as Canada and most European countries have is far far better than what Americans have. Start demanding reasons for your high healthcare bills. It is not the Medical Professionals salaries. It is not the cost of the equipment, it is not the cost of the drugs.

Premium information State by State: http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/2017-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marketplaces/

My wife is on o-Care. In 2016 our HC costs were 25% of our gross income. With a $690 premium, and $4000 deductible just for her. This year her premiums are $911, and while the deductible is lower at $1300 coverage is much worse at 60/40 to MOOP at $5500, where in '16 the deductible and MOOP were the same. So from 2014 to 2016 total HC costs have increased nearly double. I am in favor of 100% repealing o-Care with no replacement. Let the market place figure it out, not government.

Another problem with o-Care no consideration for what other HC insurance costs your family has.

For the Medicare for all people. There are about 50 million people on Medicare, it is supported by a 2.9% tax payroll tax of the workers in the US. Now add in another 275 million what will that tax go to? Simple math puts it 18.9%. In addition to income taxes. And that tax is off the top of your income. And it would likely be higher especially considering that Medicare is going broke as it is. In addition those on Medicare pay between $109 to $134 / month too. Plus any supplement policy they may have.

LMB:

On Obamacare very few young families can afford their care with large deductibles. In Canada those families would have a basic benefit and not have to worry about paying huge out of pocket bills. True, in Europe and Canada and other socialized countries they pay higher taxes, but they cover healthcare and pensions in old age. If we all knew those two items were paid for, we could still live well with what is left and have the peace of mind that we would be cared for at the most vulnerable times in our lives. I have seen many seniors delay surgeries if they were within months of getting on Medicare. I do not see too many seniors opting out--why? because it is cheaper and they are covered (provided their doctors of choice participate with Medicare). Why shouldn't all of us have this benefit? We all pay taxes. Just because one person has good insurance does not mean that all of us do. Public funds pay for libraries, fire and emergency services and they should have healthcare included too. Medicine should not be a business but a right. Those of us who have worked in healthcare have seen the scenarios--more people go broke due to healthcare bills than anything else.....and their doctors live very well. There is no doubt under the current system that there are many overcharges for goods and services. In a good program these would be negotiated down and the same with pharmaceuticals.

Agree that Medicare for all is the answer...not sure why taxes would go up because all working folks pay a Medicare tax from the moment they start working. Let's use that to go towards the healthcare such as Medicare for all. Also for those of us who work hard to stay healthy, how about a tax credit incentive on our federal taxes for minimal visits to the doc and little if any prescription needs. An incentive for keeping up that hard work!

Sounds like a winner to me SandyZ!

I just read through all the comments and am troubled at an underlying theme that seniors SHOULD NOT pay their fair share for premiums. ObamaCare artificially caps age rating at 3X for seniors. The now-dead Republican bill set that figure at 5X (closer to what is actuarially valid). Why should we not pay our fair share??

Sandy Z said "Agree that Medicare for all is the answer…not sure why taxes would go up because all working folks pay a Medicare tax from the moment they start working. "

Why would taxes go up, because that money is spent on current Medicare recipients, and it is not enough now and Medicare is already going broke. How would you pay for another 275 million people without raising taxes by a huge amount. Government has absolutely no money of its own. Taxpayers pay it all, and government still borrow huge amounts every year.

Who thinks it's a good idea for the government to be involved in any way? There is no Constitutional mandate for the government to provide health care. In addition, health insurance is the problem, not the solution. Note how there is a huge discrepancy between what you have to pay as an individual and what the insurance companies pay with grossly inflated or deflated prices and bills an economics Ph.D. couldn't understand. What we need is affordable health CARE not complex health INSURANCE. Why can't we see a rates schedule from docs and hospitals? Why can't we get enough information to make informed health care choices? We're going in the wrong direction, folks. The government could help out by passing legislation limiting law suits and getting the insurance sold over state lines, but they need to keep their nosey noses out of my private medical affairs, and the only way to accomplish that is to not allow them any control over our health care. America has become more and more like a bunch of preschool babies not willing to take any responsibility for heir own lives. Remember what Jefferson said? A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.

Medicare is not going broke. This just one of many articles you can find.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/broke-and-because-of-aca/

Laura C., thanks for posting. We seem to think a lot alike, and although I have been an enthusiastic reader and poster over several years, many of my posts have been censored this year, as I've heard has also been happening on several other social media sites. I'll be pleasantly surprised if I see our posts tomorrow!

Jim:

Seniors do pay their fair share and have paid through their taxes all their working lives. Once retired, many retired people simply do not make as much money as they did when they were working. If you want to pay more, I am sure that your money would be accepted somewhere.

Jennifer

LauraC, I think today the only way to have affordable health care is to get the government involved. They are the ones who need to get the costs down. Just like every other country. But they don't because the politicians are being paid to do what the companies want rather than what we want. Even with the pared down GOP plan they wanted to dictate what will and won't be covered.

Insurance companies can sell across state lines now. I'm sure the reason they don't do that much is the regulations of different states. The GOP said you can move around with your insurance but that isn't even logical. One of the things insurance rates are based on is the medical prices in a location. So while you might be able to buy your insurance might be cheaper in another state - the prices will not be the same if you don't live there.

Knowing the prices of healthcare might be a useful tool. But remember - it is the insurance company that usually dictates who your providers are. If you go out of that network - you will be paying more.

The government is already involved in Medicare and Medicaid and VA benefits. I really don't know who much info the government could get considering HIPPA laws.

I think what we need to do is change our current government so they are working for us rather than the lobbyists. Why did this GOP healthcare plan include huge tax breaks for the wealthy and the insurance companies? Why were the GOP quoting Aetna? Aetna lied when they said they left the exchanges because they weren't making money. Aetna and Humana left because their merger was denied.

Yesterday the GOP passed a bill to let ISP's sell your information without asking you. There is a list of those greedy GOP's and the amount of money they got from the lobbyists. It is sad that this is the state of our government.

Jennifer - I agree that the taxes we have paid to fund Medicare have been burdensome and that Medicare is constantly mislabeled by politicians as an entitlement. It is not. We've been funding it all our working lives. Sorry if I wasn't clear. My comments were regarding private pay insurance.

Dear folks,
Frankly, I'm amazed and pleased to see how opinionated everyone is on this subject.
Wish D.C. was on this site.
Healthcare history also complicates the matter.
A lot of us forget that employer based and subsidized insurance plans were started as a benefit, as a way for employers to basically give workers raises, while getting tax breaks for themselves. It's complicated, but basically became the norm and the culture of the land. To a large degree, we are still trying to unwind ourselves from this precedent.
It was a great benefit that dates back to the age of "our generation" or maybe our parent's one, in which you worked for one company for your entire work career.
Now, it's a ball and chain, that often keeps people at jobs they gate,as they can't afford to lose their benefits.
IMHO, disconnecting healthcare from one's employer is a big part of the puzzle.

Laura C has it right. There is no "right" to health in the constitution.
Elsie45, Read the constitution.The government exits to" protect life, liberty and property", not babysit.

Should read...health care...

Stevenk, You make a great point! I think the healthcare system would be much better shape today if they had never attached medical insurance to the workplace. If it had developed over the years like other types of insurance it would probably be much more affordable now.

There are many rights that are not specifically stated in the constitution. For example, the right that students not be forced to attend unequal segregated schools. That right was determined in 1954 by a unanimous Supreme Court headed by a Republican chief justice appointed by Republican Dwight Eisenhower. If some in Congress get their way, the right to health care would be decided at the state level, creating a chock-a-block system making a citizen's right to health care dependent on where they live. This could be a violation of constitutional equal rights and would likely end up in the Supreme Court, where a constitutional right to health care could be determined even though it is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Just as in the 1954 case desegregating public schools. Some might say this is legislating from the bench or judicial activism. But if you believe that, then you also must believe that the Court's decision to desegregate schools was wrong. Health care is and continues to be a legitimate subject of constitutional rights. For example, Obamacare went up to the U.S. Supreme Court a couple of times and was ruled lawful and constitutional each time. Chief Justice Roberts, a Republican appointee, led the case saying it was lawful.

Government involvement in healthcare has a long standing records of successful engagement. Medicare for example working well. The VA system was very good when established as there were few medical facilities available. Today the expense of sustaining a separate system of hospitals and doctors is ludicrous!
The need for all citizens to be covered under a healthcare system only makes good sense for a civilized country. The ACA is a good start.
Most civilized nations have a single payer system that covers all citizens and works very well. Why should we pay huge executive bonuses for poor service. Corruption and greed makes private companies unworkable.
Seniors should pay no more than younger people! Younger people are prone to the same illnesses and even more due to accidents and reckless behavior. It all works out evenly when you look at the big picture

The ACA was a well thought out and implemented healthcare plan for those that could not get insurance. Why should everyone have insurance ? Because I do not want to be charged for the cost of paying for the uninsured.

For those of you who say you don't want to pay for other people's healthcare. How is healthcare any different from Auto Insurance or House Insurance? If you own a car you are supposed to have insurance. If you are the best driver in the world and have not had an auto accident in 30 years you pay for insurance while other people are totaling out their cars every single day in every single state. People who own homes normally have house insurance and every single day people's houses burn down, visitors fall in peoples yards, earthquakes, floods, landslides, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc destroy homes. Your house may never have an issue and you may never file a claim but you are protected if you do. Yes, in both cases of auto insurance and home insurance you are paying for others to get new homes and new cars. So how is it different with healthcare? Young people get terrible illnesses, babies get sick, old people get sick, middle age people get sick. If young people are allowed to buy young people insurance which is cheap and bare bones, what happens if they get a terrible illness that will cost $500,000 dollars in treatments and surgery? If their policy only covers doctor visits and bandaids, how will they pay IF they get sick? We should frown upon paying for women to get maternity care? Or an older man who has prostate issues should buy a special policy? No one can predict when they will get sick, what kind of illness they will get or what medical treatment they will need or the costs of the treatments. No one can predict if your house will be destroyed and no one can predict a car accident. In a perfect world we would not have accidents, or get sick, or have to pay for insurance. But it is not a perfect world! Cost controls need to be put in place. When I get my insurance statement from a doctor, sometimes the bill was submitted for $275 and in the end the doctor gets my $50 copay and another $60 from the insurance. They seem to have to eat the difference.

StevenK, that is an excellent point.

Jeffrey, I never said healthcare was in the constitution. Selling your internet history isn't in the constitution either.

I still think the big problem with health insurance these days is that the insurance companies are paying the politicians to do the things they want. The politicians who are supposed to be working for us are not. Why haven't they fixed some of the issues with the ACA in some states that had problems? Because they wanted ACA to fail.

I find it very interesting that there was an federal committee that investigated the premium increase for the federal employee long term insurance policy. That's great - but why haven't they looked at the premium and deductible increases for all of us?

For all the work andexpense it took to put ACA into effect I would think it would be better to fix it rather than create a new plan.

Louise, Elsie,
All excellent points. I see healthcare as , I believe Louuse described it. Not just in terms of personal coverage, but as a community obligation, just like car insurance. It's what the founding fathers described as "degrees of freedom", meaning that we all sacrifice some freedom for the greater overall freedoms it gets us.
That's one of the political philosophies that founded this country. Anyway, life is simple and complex at the same time. In all it's complexities, I view these issues in terms of the "degrees of freedom" deal we are constantly making, when we sacrifice some freedom, for others.
We have a police department, so that, in exchange for running the risk of getting into our own trouble, we hopefully can walk down the street at night.

Clyde: Don't read into the Constitution what isn't there. If it is not specifically there is not inferred. Read the federalist papers. Unfortunately, too many inept "corrections" have corrupted the intent of the founding fathers. The constitution is NOT a living document, that would result in chaos and ultimately, anarchy. Hillsdale College, hillsdalecollege.com. has two courses on the constitution, they should be mandatory for all us citizens. There are five rights in the first amendment alone, can't name them, and you voted?...Take the courses.

Your internet history has been public since Obama turned it over to the FCC. "Selling" it, though not right, at least records transactions that heretofore had been under the table. A shame isin't. Putting anything on the internet allows it to be mined, might as well broadcast it on the evening news. Little to no truth there either.

The ACA is a tax that was passed before "we knew what was in it" The VA is notoriously inept. Medicare is no panacea. We do sacrifice personal freedoms for the good of all, the federal government does not grant the right, but protects the right of life, liberty and property. That is the purpose of government in the first place.

The police are not obligate to protect "you" but the serve the public good. her are a few supreme court cases that state just that. There are cities that you cannot walk down the streets of even in broad daylight.

First off, I am wondering why the details of the current government health care program that takes care of healthcare for Congress and other government employees is not a possibility to extend for everybody under one umbrella until they retire and can switch to Medicare. I never hear of a government employee complaining about their own health care costs and experiences. That would also take care of the huge discrepancy in experiential knowledge between the usually always rich members of Congress, who were born with golden spoons in their Pablum, and the rest of the 99% whose 50 years of labor gets to support the fantasies of the lawmakers that their constituents actually have the means to pay platinum fees for iron-level services, many of which do not pertain to their needs.
Another aspect of this is that non-healthy life choices should be afixed a luxury federal tax. This works in New Your, they are enjoying a landslide of cash from taxing sugary drinks. This could provide the extra money to put into the new healthcare system.
Another thing is that education on healthy living choices needs to start in the lowest grades in schools nationwide. Then the health care system could operate like the auto insurance companies operate--the healthier you live, the lower your premiums get, which gives people an incentive to practice healthy eating, exercise, etc.
Unhealthy choices then generate the higher premiums.
People also not on Medicare may not realize that Medicare is going up also. The small Colas or non-existant Colas if we get them at all now go to pay for the increases in Medicare each year.

Thanks for posting Jeffrey and Khem. There are still some of us that don't adhere to the "fake" msn rhetoric, despite all the hype.

As evidenced in the GOP healthcare disaster most Americans want their fellow citizens to have healthcare. A healthy nation is a strong nation.

Khem,
MoC's and their staff currently get their healthcare through the D.C. Exchange so are a part of the ACA. You would think that would make them work to improve the ACA rather than kill it.

This particular article is on Obamacare and the replacement offered by the Republican leadership in the U.S. House and President Trump. And, in the words of the author, how that plan "hammers" many retirees. That plan, as we know, was pulled by Speaker Ryan and the President after it was clear it didn't have enough votes to pass. The discussion here has sometimes veered into whether The Constitution is static as originally written, or a living document, whose founders could not possibly have foreseen the changes that have come about in our nation.

Since the mid 20th century, most US Supreme Court justices have come down on the side of the living document, whose meaning can be determined as the times and society change. A few, like the late Justice Scalia, were originalists. If we were to debate these two positions on this blog, we might never end. Therefore, I hope we can remain positive and talk here about how health care can become more accessible and affordable to all who need it, especially seniors age 50 and above.

Editor's note: Well said Clyde. Lets stick to healthcare issues and try to keep discussions of our wonderful Constitution out of it.

Obamacare was the best thing that could have happened to my Hub and me. He was burned out at work and had worked as early as about 10 years old delivering news papers at 4 am before school. Then as he got older got part time jobs of between 25-30 hours a week while going to school. Later on he had worked in the HVAC trades and at age 63 retired (2015). I had lost my job in 2011 and couldn't find a job so I was on his employer insurance with him. We were immediately eligible to get on Obamacare when he retired. He needed surgery in late 2016 for which we were covered under Anthem BS/BC. The insurance paid for a giant portion of the costs. We are still appealing a Genetic test that they say is not covered ($5,150). The doctor says it should be paid eventually with the appeal process. We didn't have to pay all that much except a lot of copays. We did have to pay maybe up to $5,000 in odds and ends bills on top of copays. Hub is now on Medicare. This particular genetic testing is covered by Medicare and it kills me that Anthem is rejecting this claim. I hope we win! I am still on Obamacare but with all this hullabaloo with repeal/replace Obamacare, I can't wait to get on Medicare. He could have postponed surgery for 5 months to get on Medicare but it was too scary to wait and the doctor didn't think it was wise either. It is all behind us now and my Hubs blood tests have come back negative for cancer so...life is good! I am a fan of Obamacare!!!!

For me personally, it's very clear regarding healthcare in our great country the United States of America. I want that toddler or child living in the poor inner city or poor rural America to have the equal opportunity to defeat childhood cancer as do the children of politicians, professional athletes, movie stars, and corporate executives. It's the absolute right thing to do!!!

Bubbajob,
Health care for children growing up in poverty is already covered under Medicaid.

Yes, I know that Alice. Under the American Health Plan Act; potentially millions of children would lose such coverage regarding Medicaid and Medi-Cal {California}. What I am saying is that would be an unacceptable situation. Whatever direction we go as a country regarding Health Plans, poor children must be protected. The Health Plans that the Republicans are formulating at this time, are looking at cuts in Medicaid and Medi-Cal.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/hospitals-cutting-jobs-across-nation/

Hospitals are cutting jobs across the nation - tied to large population going on Medicare.

The President and Republican controlled Congress have proposed another Obamacare replacement bill. The details of the bill are unclear at this point, although there is talk of it coming up for a vote this week. Two details we do know are that: 1) states would have the option of ending protections for pre-existing conditions (about 40% of folks age 50-64 have pre-existing conditions like diabetes, heart disease, or cancer and would probably not be able to afford health insurance), and 2) members of Congress would not be affected by the new law. It is unclear if the votes are there to pass the proposed law - many moderate Republicans and all Democrats oppose it. Call your Congressman if you are concerned.

The only thing I can say is that I think it's abominable that Congress is able to exempt themselves! It makes me really angry! Even if it were a great plan, they should still have to use it. It stinks of elitism ! And if they had to use it also you can be sure they'd be more attuned to getting a good plan. Sorry for venting!

Louise- it is wonderful that you got the coverage you needed. However in order for that to happen, so many others had to pay extreme copays, have outrageous deductibles and pay ridiculous monthly premiums. It only works for those whose income allows them to be subsidized. We need a more equitable system that works for everyone both medically and financially.

Barbara O. Yes, it is wonderful we were able to get the coverage we needed. We followed all the rules of Obamacare and sent the appropriate paperwork they asked for income approval. I have no control on how Obamacare works or what anyone pays. Just as those who are eligible for food stamps, medicaid and housing subsidies, they met the requirements. The government makes the rules.

Yes, Obamacare needs fixing and I hope they do, but I am having my doubts seeing how they are trying to jam it down the Congress's throats.

I am now paying MORE than we were when my Hub was on Obamacare with me. He went onto Medicare in March. They call it the marriage penalty. That doesn't make sense either.

The news reports mentioned if Obama care gets repealed thst people who live in California or Florida will be safe because they have a higher population. So, everyone really needs to research before choosing a state to retire to. I live in California and might need to reconsider moving .....

Well like all the news reports are stating now... the younger people and ones who have a higher income should pay a higher premium so the elderly and needy can be provided healthcare....then when they get older the young people will pay for their own health care. ....that's how insurance groups work! When both my husband and I lost our jobs the medicaid expansion saved our lives. ..and now having to be a caregiver for my elderly mother with dementia it has been a godsend .....

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/many-seniors-qualify-home-based-care-medicare-arent-receiving/

Many seniors who qualify for home-based care under Medicare aren’t receiving it. Why?

The new version of the bill has some features added to get votes from the most conservative members of Congress, plus a modest pool of money to help people with pre-existing conditions. But it is still a terrible bill for people age 50-64 who have to get their own health insurance. Without healthy young people in the pool, older folks' premiums will become so expensive most will not be able to afford it. The pre-existing conditions pool is spread out over so many years it will not help much. Emergency rooms will be overwhelmed with folks who couldnt afford preventive care.

As it stands now - this is a good list of who will fall into the high risk pool:

http://time.com/money/4763609/pre-existing-conditions-ahca/?xid=time_socialflow_twitter

I still have been unable to find the actual plan online. I did read that you won't be able to get into those high risk pools unless you have severe pre-existing condition. But I'm guessing the insurance companies will still be able to charge more for premiums if you have acne. Amazing that congress is planning on keeping their ACA plans. How does that happen if ACA is repealed.

I am very discouraged by all the congressmen who didn't read this bill but they voted for it. But then I'm sure Trump hasn't read it either.

Just being a woman shouldn't be a pre-existing condition but it looks like that is the plan of the GOP.

I suspect that when we see the ACA plan details, we'll discover that "breathing" constitutes a pre-existing condition.

Don't worry about the new ACA plan yet. By the time it gets to the Senate, it will be modified and hopefully better? Might not pass at all. The House didn't give the details much thought. They just wanted to get Obamacare repealed and Trumpcare passed.

"We have to pass it before we we can find our what's in it" pelosi

This is a great example of a statement that is easy to take out of context and use against someone (see, e.g., "You didn't build that").

It takes two bodies of Congress to pass a law, the Senate and the House. Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House and was discussing the controversy over what was *expected* to be in the final law. She commented that people were expressing outrage that it was going to "legalize abortion", or that it would create "death panels", and so on. There was literally no way for Pelosi to defend against those comments without having a bill passed by the Senate that she could then take to the House and explain to everyone: "Look, here is the bill we are considering, this is what is *actually* in it". So, in a moment she will regret for the rest of her life, she uttered those famous 16 words that said exactly what she meant, but sounded awful. In order to rebut all the negative assumptions about what was in the proposed bill, the Senate would have to pass a bill first to establish that THIS is what we are dealing with.

Debra, WELL SAID!

....and...it was passed before we found out what was in it. Don't assume any thing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/opinion/health-care-spain.html?_r=0

What Spain Gets Right on Health Care

Yes JoannL that is a great article! Thanks for sharing! Using this model would serve all citizens, save taxpayer money, provide better care at the primary level - it is a win-win for everyone BUT the insurance companies! Until we outlaw lobbyists, something this great will never happen - it is a far too lucrative partnership for congresspeople!

Just a comment..Senator McSally proposed a resolution in the senate that they would have the same healthcare plan as the people, and it passed. Don't know what that will mean for the plan the senate proposes.

Canada outlawed insurance companies in the 60's when they began universal healthcare. It worked for them and it can work for us. It works for the common good...so all have at least a basic insurance coverage. What we have now is a model that medicine is big business and not a basic human right--so only those with money get the best healthcare...everyone else must scramble with substandard doctors--yes there is a bottom fourth of every medical class and pay for overpriced drugs that cost much less elsewhere in the world. It is time for everyone to have insurance if you are an American Citizen, just as other countries do. Write your representatives in Congress and your senators....a tidal wave demanding universal coverage would be hard to ignore. Medicare works for seniors and can work for all of us too.

I am jumping into this conversation as a person who worked to age 66, despite my strong desire to retire earlier. I think the question of health insurance for early retirees should be looked at from another angle. Why in the world should taxpayers subsidize anybody'e early retirement?? That is just wrong. If someone is disabled, there are provisions for that. I would never have expected anyone to hand me money to pay for my health insurance so that I could sit around and retire at age 60!!!!!!

Well in a perfect world many of us would have chosen to keep working rather than retiring early. I have been layed of 3 times in my working life. Collected unemployment each time and the last time was for 73 weeks. I tried my darndest to find suitable employment but couldn't find anything. I am 63 and on Obamacare and receiving a subsidy. My Hub retired at age 63 and also received a subsidy. He is on Medicare now. Obamacare is a program that I didn't invent. It is offered to the public regardless of age. I also worked 37 years. So I guess THEY are handing me money to sit around to subsidize my Obamacare. I never had children so besides my periods of unemployment, I worked.

Thank you Louise. .....I also was layed off at 58 and now on Obama care but on the expansion of medicaid version. I can't work because I am a caregiver for my 89 yr old mother with dementia. I have never previously claimed assistance from the govt but am grateful for the help. I also have no children so who will help me in my later years if the govt does not??

Babyboomer55 I applaud you being caregiver to your Mother! It isn't an easy job. I cared for my Mom a short time before she passed and it was very hard mentally for me. Since you cannot work, have you checked into programs that may compensate you for caring for your Mom? I don't know anything about it but ran across this article: https://www.payingforseniorcare.com/paid-caregiver/elderly-parents.html

Most of us don't want to be paid for caring for loved ones, but since you can't work, you have bills like all of us and maybe this could help you out.

Best wishes.

Www.opensecret.org states that insurance companies "donated" over $147 million to campaign elections of preferred politicians who vote favorably to support their astronomical profits (BC/BS is the biggest spender). This amount is in addition to the paid lobbyists that constantly remind the congresspeople through fringe benefits and perks who Is buttering their bread - on both sides! And to think that we thought that our elected leaders represent us? HA!

Well, that is all well and good to take care of your sick parents. The question is, why should taxpayers subsidize that? I was a working mother when my parents got sick and I had to work to keep my own health insurance and the family paid to have a nurse during the week.

Unemployment is a diffferent story. Perhaps COBRA should be extended for people who are laid off over the age of 55 or unemployment could help that person find a job. The point is, many people chose to retire early and rely on taxpayers to cover their health insurance. That is just wrong. MEdicaid was never designed to cover early retiirees and perhaps if it didn't people would work until Full retirement age.

I am in the same boat, my job was eliminated, my husband was laid off we have been looking for work for over 2 years, Obama Care is a blessing. Employers are getting rid of older workers and new employees won't hire them. we didn't invent the affordable health Care, but is great for us older folks, who have been pushed out of the work force.

The cost of hiring a caregiver for my mother would be over $3000 monthly. So as you can see earning $2000 monthly wouldn't be cost effective. I am her only living relative. Louise, my mother would not qualify for any compensation programs, and thanks for the kind words.

Yea, I know the cost. So, yo think the taxpayers should subsidize you? Should taxpayers subsidize all of us to quit our jobs to take care of loved ones? If your Mom did not qualify for any government programs, then she could afford care.

Mary N, by the way I am retired, on Obamacare get subsidies to help pay for it AND do pay taxes on the investments we withdraw each year. Just because my husband and I are retired doesn't mean we don't pay taxes! We are taxpayers. The way Obamacare is now, it does not descriminate against those who retire before age 66 years old. We also pay plenty of Town Taxes for home and vehicles to the tune of around $5,000 a year. Those of us who are on Obamacare OR Medicaid, we are playing by the rules our government established.

We can't all consider our individual lives as the Gold Standard to compare to every one else's lives and situations. There isn't a one size fits all. Our Government is working on a new health plan and I am sure people will hate it too. Contact your Congress person to voice your opinions. They are the one's who speak for us to change laws that don't work.

Medicaid pays for nursing home care once the patient's savings have been depleted. In my town, 4 years ago, the cost per month in one home was $12,000 a month. Times 12 months was $144,000. Taxpayers are paying for that too!

For me, I am going to take whatever the government offers and that we qualify for. As a matter of fact, in my Town they offer a homeowner's tax credit for people of a certain income level and are age 65. We will be eligible next January! There is no shame as long as you follow the rules and regulations of whatever you are eligible for.

MaryN , you are making some huge assumptions there. Who is it that you think is quitting their job and retiring early? Considering what is going on in DC - is the retirement age going to go up? Will I be able to keep my job until I can fully retire? Maybe yes and maybe no.

I had a work related accident and soon after I went back to work the company closed its doors. Due to the accident my wages were greatly reduced so my unemployment was reduced. Then I had to have another surgery related to the accident. And then my unemployment ran out before I could use it. This all put a huge strain on my budget. I couldn't find a job. Do you really thing everyone wants to hire someone with an obvious shortfall now? The answer is NO!

We all pay taxes for things we don't want. Like war. See this woman's brilliant response to her congressman.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/15/a-congressman-said-making-a-man-get-maternity-insurance-was-crazy-a-womans-reply-went-viral/?tid=pm_politics_pop&utm_term=.4b53afcaf396
I for one would rather pay taxes for those in need of help. That is much better in my eyes than having my taxes go to the wealthy, who don't need the help.

It doesn't take much for the wheels to come off the bus and all of your plans go down the drain.

BTW, MaryN, my mother's income is $1600 monthly. So how do you think she can cover paying for a full time caregiver? I am saving the govt thousands of dollars every month and having to claim my SS early so I can help with her expenses! So, who do you think is going to help parents when they can no longer do so if it's not their children? We all hope that we won't need help from our families but most elderly especially with Alzheimer need constant care. And when I pass away the govt will be getting my home since I don't have any children, so receiving free health benefits for 6 years will compensate whatever costs I incurred.
It's so nice to see their are others who are compassionate with these issues because the day may come ......

Babyboomer55 If you have brothers or sisters or someone you'd like to leave your house to you might consider setting up a life estate: http://www.elderlawanswers.com/protecting-your-house-from-medicaid-estate-recovery-12155

You could also add someone's name to the title of your car and of course bank accounts. However, I'd be very careful who I added to my bank account! Heard too many horror stories.

Please don't think that I am not compassionate. However, when it comes to health insurance, taxpayers can only pay so much and there arre provisions for those who become disabled. I am saying that objecting to a new health insurance plan because it does not cover able bodied people of pre- full retirement age is not a legitimate objection. Regardless of age, we all may have a time when a family member needs medical care. For me, my parents became very ill when was in my forties. Is that a reason to object to a government health inusrance plan that didn't allow me to stay home and care for my loved ones? No! As you say, one size cannot fit all. If someone becomes handicapped before full retirement age, we have Medicaid for that. I am a person who went to work with a chemo pump and then came home and cared for my child and also had to care for my parents. Should the rest of taxpayers had to pay for me to stay home? I don't think so. Some people will learn about and get all they can from the government. I have all the compassion in the world for those who cannot work due to disability. If someone becomes unemployed, there are provisions for that with COBRA and the unemployment division can help find that person work. We need to change our health insurance delivery and all I am saying is that it is not a legitimate concern to say a plan is bad because it doesn't cover early retirees who are able bodied.

MaryN,

It is not so simple as to say that no early retirees should be protected from a "bad plan". EVERYONE should be protected from a "bad plan". What constitutes "bad" is, of course, debatable. But, to try and make it as simple as reaching retirement age is when it is time to provide a "fair plan" is not appropriate. For example, do you feel that someone who is 60 years old and has worked full time since the age of 25 and paid all income and payroll taxes for 35 years has less of a right to a "fair plan" to start at 60 years of age, than someone who was only employed for 5 years between the age of 25 and 65 and now is in Medicare because of reaching the age of 65? If you do, then I'd understand how the ACHA might seem fair to you, but I'd argue it is not fair as it punishes the 60 year old as explained below. Plus, the economy can actually benefit from baby boomers retiring early if they have the savings to do so, as it will open up opportunities for younger generations. However, if you support the ACHA, you would rather punish the 60 year olds for financial acumen that has led to them preparing for retirement and, thus, being less of a burden on the economy than those who did not plan and did not save? Take for example the situation where a married couple, both 60, have managed to save two million dollars. Wouldn't a "fair plan" allow for that couple to retire early? The problem with the current ACHA is that this couple could be facing annual insurance coverage premiums of $25,000 each - $50,000 per couple (and, yes, they would be facing about half that under the ACA that is being repealed). The point is that a "fair plan" for that couple would allow them to retire and I would argue they have earned the right to do so. But who could possibly retire even with $2 million in savings with a $50,000 per year insurance premium before consideration of out of pocket medical costs? Given that one is supposed to limit spending to 4% of savings, which in this case = $80,000 per year, this couple would be facing medical premiums that alone represented 2.5% of savings ($50K/2 million) or almost 2/3 of their annual budget ($50K/$80K). So, the current ACHA basically punishes those who struggled for decades to save enough to strive for the goal of early retirement. And their great reward for their efforts is that they get to keep working five more years just to maintain access to a "fair" employer offered insurance plan because the ACHA prevents them from that access. Wouldn't you agree that a disincentive against striving to work hard towards the goal of early retirement would be among the worst type of policy we'd want implemented into a health care plan? And, by the way, this all assumes that the couple would get access to a fair plan via working for their employer for another five years. The ACHA, though, also allows for employers to change their plan coverage to be in line with that provided by the WORST of the plan offerings of any of the states (regardless of where the employer is located). So, guess what, not even staying with the employer plan would guarantee that they wouldn't see their medical care costs skyrocket and/or their plan benefits get stripped to the bone. I, for one, am not going to assume that, out of the goodness of their heart, employers don't take advantage of that ACHA loophole allowing for the employer to adopt any state plan that has gotten far less scrutiny than it deserves.

Louise, I don't have any siblings or close relatives. I might do a reverse mortgage otherwise hubs and I will be living on $1600 monthly. Can't decide between renting or buying. Also looking into RV LIVING too....

Thank you posters for all of this information.
We know a couple in their late 50's that live near us. They were self employed and decided to quit their jobs because their health insurance premiums had skyrocketed. It no longer made financial sense to keep working, with all the risks of a small business. They have many assets, but apparently that didn't matter
when they signed up for Obamacare. It is income based. That is what they told us.

Babyboomer55 you might want to consider a HECM for Purchase (Home Equity Conversion Mortgage). Basically how this works is that at age 62 or older you can sell your house and buy another one and if you were to buy, as an example, a $300,000 home, you might only have to put $150,000 down and NEVER make a mortgage payment. If you were to have sold you old home for $350,000, as an example, you put the $150,000 down and bank the other $200,000 in the bank! These are just examples. I am not a mortgage expert or a HECM expert but this gives you an idea how it works. Here is an article on it: http://www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/T037-C000-S004-buy-a-home-with-a-reverse-mortgage.html

Yes, Caps, that is exactly right. Obamacare is based on income such as Wages, Social Security, Pension, Investment income such as interest and dividends and IRA withdrawals. It doesn't matter what your assets are. To be eligible for a subsidy, income must meet certain federal guidelines. We withdraw just enough money from our IRA's so we remain below the 400% poverty level. Our CPA has told us to consult her before we withdraw larger sums. When my Hub was still on Obamacare our subsidy worked out to $13,200 a year. Now that he is off it, my subsidy is less but works out to $4,800 a year. I have no idea what the new health plan will be like or what it will cost or when it will be implemented. I have 14 months till I turn 65 and then will waltz off to the land of Medicare.

Thanks Brian for your well thought out explanation of the proposed health care program. It is frightening what they have in mind. I won't be on Obamacare or whatever the new plan is for long but I do hope they come up with something better than what you have described. If it is as horrible as you describe, I can see the next Presidential candidate will campaign to repeal it and replace it too!

I believe that within the early part of the next decade the United States will have a single-payer healthcare system for all Americans. It's what the majority of the populace desires on both sides of the aisle. Currently with Veteran Affairs, Medicare, and Medicaid / Medi-Cal nearly 60% of Americans are already covered by some type of government health insurance.

I actually think that the proposed plan is a good plan for MOST able bodied people. I know as a working divorced Mom who did not get health insurance from an employer, I could have really benefitted from the tax credits, and also the ability to buy insurance across state lines. This plan incorporates all of the elements I would be looking for except that I believe pre- existing conditions MUST be covered. As far as anyone protesting that they feel they have the right to retire early and have taxpayers subsidize their health insurance even if they are able bodied, I do NOT agree. There are too many Americans who learn and use every loophole they can to get benefits and bleed the systems. We all remember JFK saying, "Ask not what your country can do for you.....". So, I believe people need to work until FRA unless they are officially disabled, at which point they qualify for government benefits. We all have sick parents or loved ones at some point. I worked while being treated for cancer and as a divorced Mom caring for a child alone with 2 sick parents. Did I seek to have the taxpayers pay to support me? NO!!! I don't roll that way and have no stomach for people who do! Medicaid was never designed to cover able bodied people who can work!!!!!

I know under Obamacare you can preserve your assets in protected funds and have the taxpayers pick up the tab for most of your health insurance, but I think that is wrong. I guess the joke is on people like me who withdrew money to pay my own way rather than have the taxpayers pay for me, even though I was a single working Mom getting cancer treatments and also cared for sick parents. I was raised by a proud American to be a proud
American and was taught to give, not take. So, I spent my own money and I wouldn't have it any other way. We just see the world very, very differently.

The Senate will improve the House version of the health bill but I don't see the republicans keeping the subsidy. Without the subsidy the cost will be much higher for most people.

Interesting article - Healthcare a Hot Item at Town Halls in Virginia, Nebraska
Two House members -- one Democrat, one GOPer -- got very different receptions

https://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/repeal-and-replace/65343?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2017-05-17&eun=g1023513d0r&pos=0

As someone who has been working for nearly 40 years (very lucky - no breaks in employment), I resent that anyone would say I should not be allowed to retire before age 65. I've worked and saved, plus payed thousands of dollars in taxes over the years. I'm not asking for a free ride. I want to pay "affordable" fees for "descent" healthcare coverage that will not liquidate my savings so I go broke - then need government help. Then what kind of help will it be? And yes - I have pre-existing conditions too and have worked through chemo and radiation treatments. I've more than paid my dues. I certainly hope that all those taxes I've paid - that "some money" had gone to "helping" anyone who was less fortunate than myself.

If the AHCA is such a wonderful plan then why isn't Congress going to use it? Their plan is to actually keep ACA as their insurance. So how good can it be?

I still think we should have a universal healthcare. We are so behind most countries when it comes to healthcare.

MaryN, At this point in time, Obamacare is the law of the land and all Americans, by law, were supposed to participate or be penalized. I think the penalty has been lifted but Obamacare still exists until replaced. There is no law in place that prevents people from retiring early. There is no penalty for taking Obamacare early and nowhere have I read that anyone is a 'taker or freeloader' by signing up for it. I AM a taxpayer too. When you sign up for Obamacare you input your income sources and the computer calculates the subsidy. I spoke to the Access Health people through the State of CT when we signed up and they did not chastise us for 'retiring early'. There is no opt out subsidy button to push. The government created this program and it is for all Americans whether they are self employed, students, unemployed and retired people that are not eligible for Medicare. Maybe when you paid for insurance years ago, Obamacare didn't exist. Not many people would go out of their way to pay more than they have to. My Hub and I combined have worked approximately 85 years. We have paid our Federal and Town taxes diligently and on time. We have paid our bills and saved money along the way. We have a paid off our house and paid off our vehicles. We have no credit card debt or owe anyone anything. We also had no children and did not benefit from having kids go through the school system. We paid while we worked and are still paying for kids, who we don't know and will never know to get a free public education. Did you put your child through private school to avoid taking tax payer money to educate your child? Probably not. There are many things WE taxpayers pay for and never get to use to our personal benefit. I consider myself a good American too. I have 3 American flags flying on my property plus red, white and blue buntings on my deck and am proud to say I am American. We also vote at local elections and Federal elections.

We Americans are also educating illegal alien children because it is the law. It costs approximately $12,000 to $18,000 to educate one child per year in school depending on costs per State. They too are entitled to a taxpayer-funded education. The government has many, many programs that we can love or hate but if it is the law, we have to abide by it and accept it. The government has a farm program that 'pays' farmers to NOT grow certain crops. It is called a subsidy too.

I am sorry you resent 'able bodied people' who retire early. If the Government offers a program that I am entitled to, and I am not breaking any laws, I will take advantage of it as should all Americans who are entitled. You are entitled to your beliefs and I am entitled to mine. That is why America is so great. We are free to have our own opinions.

I think you are being led like sheep if you believe single payer is a good thing. Yes, look at the VA. I am a veteran and got my own insurance as quickly as I could, due to the inadequate system.
Whatever government can grant, can also be removed.
Why not opt for freedom? Our wonderful constitution and founders would decry what's happening.

Trash Trumpcare it is a hastily formed and terribly flawed document!
The ACA (Obamacare) is a very good and thoughtful law that protects all Americans even if you don't have to sign up to it
1)The ACA levies a 0.9% tax on the very wealthy drug companies and insurance companies which all benefit from the ACA's 30 million subscribers. This pays for most of this insurance
2)The ACA removes the 1 million dollar max payout that existed prior to the ACA
3)No refusals for pre-existing conditions is mandatory not up to individual states
4) Insurance rates are to be regulated by State governments. Rates to high comp[lain to your congress people
5)The insurance rates is a flat rate not penalizing older people this must be maintained
6)The ACA helps fund rural clinics and doctors areas where otherwise no medical help would be available
The benefits go on and on and on

Trash Trumpcare as it is, is a joke to a country such as America! Maintain and modify the ACA as needed

Well its all well and good if you have savings to pay for your healthcare or assist your elderly and sickly parents. I'd like to know what you expect lower income families to do with parents who need 24 hr care and can't afford to pay for an outside caregiver. I also had a disabled sister and elderly mother who needed care so while I was able to qualify for ACA before they passed away it was a godsend. The govt prefers family members to keep their families at home because it's more costly than placing them in a nursing home. Or is it better to just let them die!!

MaryN...

I hope you don't need any help from your family or the govt when you get old....you might have a different viewpoint then! !

There are many older workers who get let go and can't find work before they get on medicare. Would you prefer that we revert back to going to the emergency rooms? Im hoping that the majority of people are more compassionate and not calling names to people in need. ..

MaryN, You said that "people need to work until full retirement age, unless they are officially disabled." I'm surprised you support what is basically a Communist idea. We live under capitalism, not Communism. A capitalistic society does not force its citizens to work to a certain age (FRA is 66 and rising). A basic precept of capitalism is that if you work and have saved enough, you can leave work if that is your wish or need. But even then, a couple should not be forced to pay up to $50,000 a year for health insurance, or go without and cost the rest of us plenty in tax money for their hospitalization if they get sick.

As someone with a preexisting condition, I am horrified by Trump care. As a mother and grandmother of females, I am appalled by the opportunity for the states to opt-out of paying for maternal health care. As a citizen of a first world country, I am ashamed that this country chooses not to provide healthcare for all of its citizens. I want to believe that we are better than this.

Folks, Of course you have the right to retire early. All I am saying is that taxpayers should not subsidize your health insurance if you are able bodied and chose not to work. If you are disabled, of course you qualify for all kinds of benefits. The comments here trashed an entire plan, which is good for the majority of working Americans, because the cost to insure yourselves from age 60-65 is greater than what it is now with government subsidies. For most, subsidies are replaced by tax write offs, which sure would have helped me a great deal when I was paying for my own healh insurance. I never thought it was fair that those who got health insurance from employers never paid taxes on that amount, while I had to pay income taxes and got no deduction for the amount I paid for health insurance, which was substantial. The new plan will provide relief to millions of working people! Also, the ability to buy health insurance across state lines will lower the costs substantially! As far as what to do about the cost for early retirees, there will be deductions on your income taxes. Also, I suspect millions will keep working, which is desirable. We have to have a plan that provides for the greater good.

Why are we, a supposedly advanced society, unable to institute a low-cost, healthcare plan much like those in other civilized, prosperous nations? What do the Europeans and Australians know that we do not? We already have the Medicare and Medicaid infrastructure in place; why not build upon that so that decent coverage is available to all ages? The ACA was a step in the right direction, but did have and continues to have many faults. The Trump/Ryan/Care proposal is not even worth discussion.

The extreme control of health insurance lobbyists are the problem. They call the shots and in return get outrageous profits at the cost of lives. We pay the price while they profit.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/08/400-million-dollar-tax-break-for-insurance-execs-sparks-outrage.html

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/compensation-issues/20-highest-paid-healthcare-ceos-in-2015.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/03/31/what-if-we-confiscated-the-compensation-for-large-health-insurers-and-redistributed-it-to-members/#614b119f614b

Well, as a retiree at 62 my income is not high enough to file and claim any deductions. So that doesn't work for alot of us!

The problems with state sponsored health care are multitudinous. Begin with the " civilized" countries like France going broke over entitlements, and finish by allowing the government that kind of control over that large a segment of the economy

Let's do what Pres Obama originally wanted to do before the compromise now known as Obamacare came to be.....MEDICARE FOR ALL.

Those who are on Medicare and making comments are already on Universal insurance. Those of us not ready, willing, or able to retire want the same benefit. We need to have healthcare for all--that is what is for the common good. A healthy population of people beneftis all--not those who are stressed out, drugged to death by the pharmaceuticals, and unable to afford a decent healthcare practitioner because their insurance is tied to a job. It is wrong. Medicare is already in place --we do not have to reinvent the wheel and furthermore the commercial insurance follows Medicare guidelines and codes--they balk at paying more than Medicare allows and when they don't pay YOU do. We can tweak Medicare to include younger age groups and that would be a good thing as well. All ages need care. No country will trade places with us when it comes to our healthcare. Please write your congressmen and senators in Washington--let them know what you want! They live in bubble up on the hill removed from those that struggle in the real world and are only reminded when they go back to the people that voted for them. Write, write, write--NOW is the time since change is in the air...we do not want it to go against us. Nothing that has been suggested by Trumpcare has been made law except for dropping the requirement for coverage, We need to get moving on this before we all suffer. I live in Washington DC and am a former nurse--my husband was a surgeon so I know how things work here.

Jennifer - I totally agree with you. However, the money trail appears to be more complex when doctors limit the number of medicare patients they see because they get back less money. There needs to be a realistic balance in cost to patient and reimbursement to doctors and hospitals. I've heard that some doctors will not even accept medicare patients which I think should be against the law.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/21/news/economy/medicare-doctors/

http://pnhp.org/blog/2015/12/10/widening-gap-between-private-and-public-payments-for-hospital-care/

JoannL - it is not just a question of doctors accepting Medicare patients, it is will they accept the Medicare payment? My husband has been on Medicare for one year and I am about to also begin Medicare coverage soon. Hub's recent annual physical, billed by the physician who DOES accept Medicare patients, cost 199.00, not including lab work. Medicare paid 82.50...usual and customary charge. Medigap insurance will not pay the difference. So we will probably get stuck with the additional 120.00! Make sure you ask the right question up front when it comes to medical services!

Jennifer,

You are both on the money. Jennifer, I couldn't agree with you more. No need to reinvent the wheel. As a recently retire Medicare provider, I didn't get rich, but did well enough.
Since I am a free market person and does not like big government or monopolies or abuse of power, I would still, however , offer incentives to level the playing field, such that private insurers can bid for your business. I think that the more options consumers have, the better.
Tweak Medicare rates, friending on age and income or other reasonable demographics,
Provide private insurers enough incentives that offer alternatives and that is that.
I know the devil is in the details, but Medicare option for all is my recommendation

Sandy Z, you do not get stuck with the balance. When a provider accepts Medicare, they agree to charge what Medicare allows, the balance is written off.

SandyZ, it sounds like your doctor's office may not have coded the services for your your husband's exam correctly. Medicare no longer calls it an annual physical, but an annual wellness visit. Under Obamacare rules (another good thing about the ACA), these annual visits are usually at no cost and lab services typically assoociated with them (blood panels, etc.) are also to be covered. Call your Medicare provider and go over the situation with your husband's visit. I have done this at times and the Medicare insurer called the doctor's office and had them resubmit with proper coding and I saved bunch.

SandyZ I am puzzled as to why your Medigap insurance won't cover the additional $120.00? My hub is new to Medicare too and we chose Plan F due to Hubs possible medical issues. He has used his Medicare card and Plan F and we have not gotten any bills so far. I am thinking that the Medicare payment of $82.50 is the negotiated fee and your Medicap plan may not have to pay because the bill is satisfied by the Medicare payment. I am guessing the doctor has to accept the $82.50 and that will be all he will get and you will not get billed. Just a guess!

I agree Medicare would seem to be the answer to the health care issue however, the costs of the plan could be pretty costly too. Medicare A (hospital) is free to those who have worked 10 years. Medicare B (doctors/tests) costs $134.00 a month, my Hubs Prescription plan (Plan D) costs $67.30 a month and you can get lower priced plans but you pay more out of pocket. Then there are Medigap policies. My Hubs Plan F is $241.50 a month. You can get a cheaper Medigap policy but the less you pay the less coverage you get. So with those 3 items, it costs him $442.80. Not complaining about the cost but if you have to insure every member of your family at $442.80 a month, you are talking a lot of money too! Plan F is cheaper in a lot of other states. My costs are from CT.

Hello All:

If it is a requirement for licensure, believe me the doctors will accept Medicare--they would have NO choice. I also suggest that 10% of their practice be offered for private practice if they want. The more Medicare patients the more private patients they could serve. In other countries this is not an issue--it is the only game in town. In our case take Medicare and then you can offer private services.

SandyZ I use Lowcountry Medical, they bill through Beaufort Hospital. Last year when I had my Medicare physical I received a bill for five hundred something. I called and they said it was a mistake. It took a couple of months to straighten out. I had a mammogram in February and received a bill for it. That only took one call to straighten out.

Toula, the fact that you retired early must mean that you are able to support yourself, so the tax write off comes right off the top of your tax bill. There are very few people that the proposed plan would not help a great deal. The fact that you will be able to deduct the cost of your health insurance, coupled with being able to buy across state lines at competitive prices will give consumers more choices and cost less. There is no question about that. This plan provides for the greater good. If any of you think that Medicare is great, I say you are wrong! I have only been on it for a few months and i have never experienced such problems! I cannot find a doctor to take medicare in my area and procedures which are medically necessary have been denied and good luck trying to get anyone on the phone! Anytime you introduce government workers into something, you have a big problem, in my experience. The proposed plan is a good plan iand the knee jerk "Resistance" is ill informed. I guess they have not done a good job explaining it to to the public and the naysayers are misleading the public in the name of politics. It is time for the public to read the plan.

MaryN, You've mentioned "being able to buy across state lines" several times as a cost saver. The AHCA bill the house passed, which the senate is redoing, has no provision for buying insurance across state lines. I certainly don't know the answer to our country's health care situation, but I think fixing the ACA is better than throwing it out and starting over.

Even if they offered buying Health Insurance across state line it is unlikely to work: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-06/selling-health-insurance-across-state-lines-won-t-save-money

MaryN
It's impossible to know everyone's reason for early retirement. I've known coworkers who were forced to retire early after being laid off and then unable to find a new job. If a person doesn't earn enough to claim deductions on their income tax, to assume they wanted to retire early seems ill advised.

MaryN, I was layed off at 58 and not able to work because of my ailing parent who needs 24 hr care. No living family members to assist me ,so no... have had no income after using my retirement fund. So I don't qualify for any deductions and if it wasn't for Obama care I wouldn't have been able to have any healthcare at all. We in CA have no problem finding doctor's who except Medicare. My parent even has a mobile Dr who makes house calls. I would imagine people who live in smaller cities might find it more difficult. That's why anyone who plans on relocating in retirement needs to research these issues before moving.

A bit off topic, but this article helps explain some details about signing up for Medicare.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/im-healthy-really-need-medigap-medicare-advantage-plan/

Toula, Hubs has been on Medicare for a few months and has visited specialty groups, lab tests and no problem using his Medicare card and Plan F. No one balked at taking Medicare cards. We don't live in a big city but had to travel an hour to one specialist and not because we had to, it was a specialist he has visited when he was on Obamacare.

Toula, I was also layed off at age 58. Seems like the magic number for employers. How great you can take care of your parent.

Also, it is everyone's perogative to retire early and take advantage of Government offered health plans and receive a Government subsidy if they are eligible. If the Government wants to penalize older people not eligible for Medicare, maybe they should rethink the age to receive Medicare and lower it to age 60-62. Get the older people on Medicare sooner.

MaryN, once again I think it is you who needs to read the bill - that is if you can find it. When the House voted on it - the updated plan was not available and most didn't read it before voting. You seem to be quoting all of their reasons their plan is the best. But it is not the best. And I am sorry you are having issues with your Medicare. Maybe you should contact your area agency on aging to see if they can help you.

Right now there is nothing to prevent an insurance company from selling in other states. Just because the GOP keeps saying it is going to lower costs doesn't mean it's true. BCBS sells in many states - I have never seen premiums go down while I was working.

I don't think any of this will help anyone but the wealthy. I just read that the new budget has cuts for SS, Medicare and Medicaid. Not quite what Mr. Trump promised us all. Please remember that he also promised to lower the healthcare and drug costs.

It certainly doesn't give me a good feeling about my future in retirement. I'm not so sure that many people have planned on paying 5 times the premiums for health insurance if they ended up not working before age 65. How do you plan for such a thing? And NO - unemployment and Cobra aren't always the answer to not having a job. We all don't fit into your cookie cutter idea of the world.

Elsie, sorry, but you are uninformed. Health insurance cannot be sold across state lines as it is now. Every state has their own BCBS. I am certainly not the only person having diffiuclty with Medicare. Across the nation people are having issues getting doctors to take Medicare patients.
This plan is far, far better than Obamacare for the most people. This discussion is about EARLY retirees. If someone choses to retire before age 65, I assume they can afford to do so and are aware of the price of health inusrance. If they are disabled, there are resources, including free health inusrance. There is no logical reason that taxpayers should be subsidizing able bodied people at any age. If you want to call that, "cookie cutter" fine. All I am saying is that if retireing early is a CHOICE, taxpayers should not be burdened with the cost.

Toula, I admire your love of your parent. However, it just isn't sustainable for taxpayers to subsidize someone to stay home and take care of their loved ones.

MaryN,

Please read the article link that was posted by lLouise on May 19. I have copied the link below.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-06/selling-health-insurance-across-state-lines-won-t-save-money

Bloomberg is a very reliable source of financial information and NOT fake news. While we constantly hear arguments regarding how allowing insurance to be sold across state lines is going to lower health care costs, I am not aware of anyone who has explained how this would be the case other than the general statement "more competition". What the Bloomberg article does, in part, is point out that health care competition is LOCALLY focused and allowing for competition across state lines won't change that. For example, why would allowing insurance companies to offer services across state lines improve their costs incurred to provide services to rural areas without hospitals or nearby doctors? There will still be resources and services lacking in those areas and insurance companies will continue to avoid providing coverage in those areas as well as any other areas that are not profitable to them. Insurance companies are NOT going to negotiate prices down further for those services when they are already refusing to provide them because it is not profitable for them even if it means greater volume of activities for them. If volume was the focus, why would they be dropping out of providing services. The focus is profit and not volume. The only volume oriented increases that would help insurance company profitability would be to increase the volume of insured that MAKE money for the insurance companies (those that pay in more than they need in services), but that means universal health care and forcing all adults to obtain coverage (just like with other insurance where those with insurance but without claims help insurance companies to cover costs of those with claims). If you've heard any SPECIFIC, CONCRETE examples of why health care services costs (not pharmaceutical costs, but costs of doctors and hospitals) would go down from "opening competition across state lines" other than "more competition", I would love to learn about these.

Income can be lowered by contributing to IRA / 401(k) or to HSA (Health Savings Account) thus qualifying for a subsidy for Obamacare if contributions lower MAGI enough below 400% poverty level.

There is no law preventing people from retiring early, taking Obamacare insurance and qualifying for a subsidy. Able bodied or not. The Government makes the rules, we abide. It isn't wrong, it is right! If it was wrong we would all be arrested and put in jail.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks that a tax deduction is anything other than a subsidy. For every dollar that I DON'T pay on my taxes, someone else has to in order to make up the difference. This is just semantics. When we pay an insurance premium, unless we are currently receiving more in benefits than our premium, we are subsidizing someone else's healthcare. What's the difference if it's taxes or premiums? Both are "dollars out". Does it really matter if it is in the form of a tax or a premium? That is how insurance works, regardless of whether it is government sponsored or private. The big difference I see is that with private insurance, I am also contributing to (usually exorbitant) profit. Profit is not a bad thing, but 40% vs. 6% as previously stated? This entire debate is about protecting campaign contrbutor's profits at the expense of everyone else. All who are able are going to pay either way and I will submit that we will pay MORE in the end to cover people who can't pay if they don't have coverage than we will if they do have (subsidized) coverage. When did we as a society become so mean spirited about helping our neighbor?

Mary N.....
Sorry but I don't have any other options. Would you prefer that I place my parent in a nursing home that would cost more tax payer dollars in the long run?? I am saving thousands of dollars to the middle class by receiving less money in Social Security payments by not being able to work until 65.

MaryN certainly seems to be provoking a lot of posts against her thinking on healthcare and insurance. She certainly has the right to express her opinion; that's America. It sounds to me to be nearly the same as I've heard from President Trump and Speaker Ryan. MaryN, are you a strong supporter of those two? If so, just tell us and we will know exactly where you stand simply by reading in many places what the President and the Speaker have said on healthcare and the AHCA and will clearly understand your positions. Otherwise, it seems to me this "dialogue" of comments won't come to any fruitful end.

Toula 1955, we all applaud your sacrifice to your parent. In my town, a semi private room in a nursing home costs $12,000 a month and that was in 2013. I cringe to think what it is now. Yes, you are saving the tax payers money for sure. My Mom was in the nursing home only 45 days and then passed but we were faced with paying $12,000 a month because Medicare said she could no longer be rehabilitated and wouldn't pay any more money. I think the max is 100 days in rehab status. I hope you take care of yourself too. Caregivers sometimes need a break too. Please call your Senior Center to see what they might have to suggest. Don't get hung up on this nonsense talk about 'able bodied people' who retire early should keep working. There is no law that says anyone has to at this point in time. Show me the law that says so. Government programs have specific rules and if you qualify, so be it. If there are people who do not like it then contact your Congressmen to change the laws. They can have their personal opinions but the law is the law. I have no guilt for me and my husband retiring early and no one should. I think it is the best thing and more people should do it if it fits their budget.

Nursing homes get paid for 24/7 care. Family does not. Who pays for it? Mostly the tax payers as Nursing home put everyone on Medicaid as soon as possible. I have said for years family that takes care of a family member should at least get working credits for saving the tax payers money!
Most Medical insurance companies do not pay for Nursing home care unless it is rehabilitation. All doctors(hospitals too!) in my area want Medicaid patients. Been told it by several doctors. Medicaid always pays. Our local hospitals(2) in ER will take Medicaid patients first, over private pay while they check to see if you have paid your premiums.
Until the government puts a cap on what hospitals, pharmacies, doctors can charge,,, only then will there be a fair medical system for everyone.

Louise, thank you so much. I will be starting my SS in 3 months and hopefully will be able to hire someone to watch my parent a few times per month so my hubs and I can get out of the house . I'm happy you and your hubs could retire early. Moneywise, for me the difference between retiring now or at 66 amounted to a difference of $70. It would be nice if Medicare started at 62...

William DeyErmand that is exactly right! The fees have to be capped for all services! That is what Universal Healthcare does. It works in other countries and it lowers healthcare costs to a fraction of what we spend per person in the USA and we do not even cover all our citizens. By the way, we are NOT any longer the best in the world. We rank way down on the list as far as providing healthcare. Many people even go to other countries to get healthcare and often from doctors that were trained right here in the USA and then went back to their home countries and opened five star clinics. I was surprised to find that even Mexico has universal healthcare as well as private clinics for the wealthier Mexicans and still those are cheaper than anything we charge.

MaryN, I agree that we are just going to disagree on this.

I still hope we can get to some sort of universal health care system - like other civilized countries.

My sister has lived in the UK (United Kingdom and, for the purposes of this note, Universal Koverage) for nearly 40 years. She married a UK resident and has raised two terrific daughters there (by the way, both attended university tuition free, but that is a subject for another day). From her experience, and my own observation, there is no quality deficit in the care British citizens receive. On the contrary, it may be better than our own, as many unbiased surveys suggest. On a visit a few years ago, I accompanied my brother in law to a routine doctor's appointment -- at 7:30 pm! Imagine that -- appointments at the convenience of the patient. When my brother in law was affected by a rare, viral form of leukemia, he had a team of doctors on his case and they restored his quality of life (although he is monitored often). On an even more personal note, during that visit my wife experienced significant tooth pain and the National Health Service dentist looked at her within a couple of hours of calling, suggested she not fly home to the States with the abcess, extracted the tooth and followed up the next day. The total charge, because we were not citizens, was $120. Here in the States, my wife would probably have seen her dentist, been referred to an oral surgeon, waited a few days and then had the surgery, with payments probably in the high three figures. My own 4 years experience with our American form of socialized medicine, Medicare, has been excellent -- including two major surgeries -- and I only wish that those who are easy targets for misleading information about health care systems that are better than ours consider that if these national health systems were badly managed, people would be in revolt around the world. Universal health care will lessen the burden of paperwork on U.S. doctors and give them time to actually practice medicine, rather than bury their noses in laptop computers for 3/4 of our appointment time. It is time for Americans to reject stupid, fake arguments about universal care (e.g. "death panels") and start taking care of each other. I hope the proposed Trump/Ryan abomination gets us closer to that day.

Larry you are so right! Imagine...being a healthcare provider who can see a patient without worrying if their insurance will pay them. Also imagine practicing medicine without insurance companies dictating what medications to prescribe and how much. That is the kind of medicine that would I had hoped to practice when I became a nurse...I could not in the early days envision that I would have to pre-certify procedures and medications! The only real winners in the Business of Healthcare as we have it in this country--is the Insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals.

When I lived in Cairo, Egypt I got sick on the first trip over there. They have Merck , Eli Lilly, and most of the major pharmaceutical companies over there. Imagine how shocked I was to receive the medications to my hotel room in Cairo with syringes and proper dosage (my husband and his family are all doctors)--all for the equivalent of $17.00 and that even included the tip!! Such would not have been the case here and it was the very same thing I would have been prescribed in the USA. I was outraged when I realized how much we have to pay over here at home. Healthcare as a business instead of a human right is unfair to those who do not have the money to pay the high costs. Why should one have to lose their home or livelihood to a greedy healthcare system? It makes no sense at all.

As for MaryN, many people are too ill too work, but do not show it physically. There is a big difference when one compares those who do hard physical labor for their livelihood like a ditch digger and those who work at a desk in an office. Some people who look OK to you to continue working until they drop are actually not able to continue on emotionally or psychologically. They simply cannot go on. Able bodied people may also feel as they near retirement that they need to stop working while they can enjoy their lives before they go down hill, especially if they are a caregiver. Some people know their family history and the likely time they have left before they die.

I am not sure how many will remember but In the nineties during the Clinton Campaign the opposition ran commercials depicting the elderly people pushing mops, forced to work --we need to bring those back!!

No,I am not a Trump supporter. I am a Democrat. Seems that I am the only one here that was actually hurt by Obamacare and there is no reasoninig with you. I can tell you that millions of hard working seniors who did not retire early, bur who work hard well into their seventies supportmthis program because of the tax write off and the market competition which will allow consumers to select a plan that is best for them. I think that work should be rewarded and that people who game the system to take benefits that were never intended for them should not benefit, but should be ashamed of themselves, not intructing others and bragging how they work it! This is my last comment on this. The disabled and elderly should be subsisdized. Fairness dictates that if some get health inusrance tax free from employers, workers who do not should be able to deduct from taxes.

What alternative reality are you living in? The majority of people in the US retire at 62, and in Europe even earlier than that because they know the importance of enjoying your later years while you still can. People who retire early are not gaming the system , because as retirees these are programs that the US government has provided for many years. And only lower income retirees or caregivers qualify for these programs. If you cannot work and still not qualify for disability what are you supposed to do just ....die? Its encouraging to see that the majority of people on this blog are compassionate to these issues. There is no guarantee in life when you might need some assistance. ....

Funny, we have to file income tax with IRS. There is a line that asks if you contributed to an IRA, 401K, HSA (Health Savings Account). If you have done so you take that deduction which lowers your MAGI (modified adjusted gross income). When your MAGI is lowered to below 400% typically you qualify for a legal, Government subsidy to obtain Obamacare. IRS is a Government Agency and Obamacare is a Government program. I don't see how, if you put in legitimate amounts on your Income Tax or when you apply for Obamacare and give them the numbers they ask for we are 'working' the system! You have to do so by law. If you need Obamacare, and you qualify, you cannot refuse the subsidy. It is all computerized. So why should anyone be ashamed? Ridiculous and nonsense!

People who work longer are rewarded with higher Social Security checks. Those who retire early do not get the maximum Social Security so they are punished. People don't like it but that is the law and we accept it. People who have problems with the rules of Government should call/write their Congressmen, Senators, President of the United States.

I am more concerned with our President racking up millions of dollars in travel expenses and will spend more in one year than the previous President did in 8 years. This is costing us taxpayers a lot! http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/10/politics/donald-trump-obama-travel-costs/

Bravo Louise! !!

I don't know any of these retirees who did not retire early yet worked into their 70's. I do know plenty of blue collar workers who have retired at 65 years, because they would get Medicare at that time too. Many blue collar workers don't live to see 75 years of age without good health care. Our bodies have been physically pushed to the limit to stay in the work force. I have heard many wish they had of retired at 62 years, when they were still well enough to enjoy retirement. Of the retires I know, they only had about 50K in savings and their homes when they retired. Of these average blue color workers, living on a Social Security check only (approximate $1,642), they spend up to a third of their income on premiums and co pays to have coverage. I don't blame Democrats or Republicans, as they have both tried. I blame the greed behind the "big business" in the medical field. If we all paid a certain amount for Medicaid by age and income, no co pays, like Seniors pay a set premium for Medicare, we may get some where. That would cap the medical costs in this country. Otherwise I am not counting on seeing any good results from D.C. ever.

Always the same argument, national health in other countries always better then the United States. Folks take a close look and see what those countries pay in taxes. You have a choice to live in Canada for an example. Take a look at home prices and the number of people living in their country compared to ours not even close. ACA is going broke or is broke, not the GOP fault for not fixing it, the democrats had two terms to repair the issues with it and they did nothing either. In the blog I see many complaints about Medicare and the VA is running like a fine tuned machine. I'm sorry but this was a power grab. The fix was not national health care but to figure out how you can make health insurance and drugs more effective and efficient. One would have been tort reform, look at the law suits about drugs and devices. Don't believe me just look at television every day call this law firm call that law firm. I'm tired of this blog as there will be no way to make everyone happy. Comment that SS is being cut, no that program is what it is, only cuts can be related to personnel and Cola.

Louise, I agree! If someone qualifies BY LAW, then they are entitled. I think we have some bigger concerns in this country like jobs for everyone. And expenditures of D.C.

DeyErmand, you are right. The medical field is full of big business greed. Hospitals CEO's make huge paychecks while the 'little people' make peanuts. The drug companies are greedy too. I do understand some of the drug companies greed though. It cost millions and millions of dollars to develop one drug and the FDA has stringent rules that delay the drugs introduction to the market. When they have a patent on the drug they only have a certain amount of years before a generic can enter the market. So they have to market the hell out of the new drug to make the money back and then some to satisfy the stock holders. I don't know what the answer is to all of that but would be interesting if they put a think tank together to study other countries on how they developed their health systems, how the hospitals are run and how the Pharmeceutical industry works. How their costs are less and what we can do to emulate a lower cost system.

During one of my unemployment episodes I found a job in a hospital in the One Day Surgery Department. It was like Disney World every day. We probably processed 120 patients a day and they brought along friends and relatives. It was a madhouse everyday and the pay was terrible. Within one year I found a more suitable job that paid $7.00 more an hour from day 1. Oh, but they gave us a free Thanksgiving lunch and a frozen turkey! How could I leave with such lucretive benefits? The hospital I worked at, the CEO made over $1 million dollars and more than $1 million in fringe benefits.

CEO pay at Connecticut hospitals, FY 2014
Salary and salary plus fringe benefits for Connecticut hospital CEOs, based on hospital filings with state regulators. Chief executives for Hartford, Backus and Windham hospitals, MidState Medical Center, and their parent company, Hartford HealthCare, were not included in the filings and are shown in a separate table. For information on Johnson Memorial Hospital, see note below.
Hospital Salary Salary and Fringe Benefits
Bridgeport Hospital $1,066,154 $1,447,989
Bristol Hospital $712,625 $756,841
Charlotte Hungerford Hospital $501,101 $625,107
Connecticut Children’s Medical Center $482,954 $618,181
Danbury Hospital $1,114,027 $1,173,053
Day Kimball Hospital $397,109 $516,452
Sharon Hospital $221,100 $277,021
Greenwich Hospital $1,181,136 $1,357,317
Griffin Hospital $495,929 $557,181
John Dempsey Hospital $271,625 $332,520
Johnson Memorial Hospital — See note below
Lawrence + Memorial Hospital $710,383 $761,873
Manchester Memorial Hospital $647,357 $683,398
Middlesex Hospital $605,964 $1,059,523
Milford Hospital $498,203 $875,081
New Milford Hospital $228,174 $240,264
Norwalk Hospital $1,182,813 $1,268,795
Rockville General Hospital $255,613 $296,844
St. Francis Hospital and Medical Center $2,831,619 $3,135,570
St. Mary’s Hospital $711,903 $913,009
St. Vincent’s Medical Center $721,708 $1,076,770
Stamford Hospital $984,590 $2,402,748
The Hospital of Central Connecticut $1,985,960 $2,325,846
Waterbury Hospital $587,267 $700,205
Yale-New Haven Hospital (and Health System) $2,593,826 $3,520,872CONNECTICUT OFFICE OF HEALTH CARE ACCESS
(Note: The compensation for Johnson Memorial Hospital’s president and CEO has been corrected in the chart above. The original version of the chart, based on figures reported to the state Office of Health Care Access, reflected payments to both current CEO Stuart Rosenberg and former CEO David Morgan, who received severance compensation. During the 2014 fiscal year, Morgan received $198,324 in severance from Johnson Memorial. Rosenberg was paid $442,406 in salary and fringe benefits by St. Francis Hospital and Medical Center, which is affiliated with Johnson Memorial and where Rosenberg worked for nearly 30 years before taking the position at Johnson Memorial.)

Similar article here discussing CEO pay in NJ hospitals.
http://www.nj.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2016/09/non-profit_hospital_ceo_pay.html

This article discussing healthcare when more people have insurance coverage.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170518085133.htm

More cancers diagnosed at early stage following increase in health insurance coverage.

Summary:
Cancer is most curable when it’s detected at its earliest stages. An analysis of nearly 273,000 patients showed that between 2013 and 2014 there was a 1% increase in the percentage of breast, lung, and colorectal cancers diagnosed at the earliest, most treatable stage. Following full implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), this study is the first to explore changes in the proportion of cancers – those that can be detected through screening – diagnosed at stage I.

Don't forget also that the states that have expanded Medicaid, also helped the rising costs by higher-than-expected enrollment in the expanded Medicaid program created under the law. Many with children could not afford Obamacare and chose not to work, that hurt us too. In 2016 alone, Obamacare cost the taxpayers a total of $110 billion. The working class has seen 6% increases in premiums every year, and will for years to come. If we could provide this country a medical insurance program through Medicaid by age and income through each state, it would cap the medical costs in this country. Leave Medicare alone, reserved for retirees that have worked for it!!

Obamacare cost the taxpayers a total of $110 billion.

Throwing out that figure with no context is somewhat misleading and simplistic. How much would it cost taxpayers without Obamacare? How many jobs were created in the medical field? Medical costs are very complicated and not one dimensional. Some people may have "chosen" not to work but in many parts of our country jobs are scarce. Most retirees will receive benefits exceeding what they paid in to Medicare.

Debra...".In 2016 alone, Obamacare cost the taxpayers a total of $110 billion."
If you are going to repeat someone, repeat them correctly. Also in previous post I have said we need more jobs. not just in the health care system, which is one of the major hiring careers today. My point has been about capping the medicare care costs. Greed is part of what ruined Obamacare, along with no jobs. Retiree's have paid in during their working years, retiree's pay a premium for Medicare, and retiree's also pay premiums for additional health insurance to cover their medical expenses. Not to mention co pays from their savings for retirement all their working year. I think they are PAYING more than enough for the excesses, you think Medicare is providing them.

Here is your chance for input on the Senate version of the bill - but you must act today (5/23). You can send an email to Healthreform@finance.senate.gov with your thoughts on health care reform. Like the House, it appears that the Senate is not going to hold public hearings on the bill, and plans on keeping a tight lid on exactly what it contains. So no matter how you feel about it, this is your one chance to tell the committee what you think.

* Medical care cost. Sorry.
Thanks Admin for the link!

Thanks Admin for the link. I sent my opinion however, I don't really think they care what we think. They have had a hate for Obamacare since day one and their only objective was to destroy it at all costs. Whatever we end up with...pray we are left with some shred of coverage. I am not so much concerned with myself because I am 14 months away from Medicare but I would like to see all Americans have affordable health insurance.

The one thing I don't understand is why a 26 year old should still be under their parents insurance. Age 21 is the legal age for most things. Most kids who go to college graduate at age 22. Why age 26?

Debra....William DeyErmand is very close in the $110 billion. It still continues to rise and will though this year. This is from the CBO:

CBO estimates the ACA health law will boost Medicaid spending by $20 billion in fiscal 2014 and by more than $350 billion through 2019 If the CBO forecast proves correct, reform costs to date would be almost 25 percent higher, or more than $90 billion.

So you can see that in 2014 the cost was 20 billion and continue to raise through the preceding years. Of course the CBO has stopped trying to track it as it to difficult to measure.

Let's not forget the $800 million dollars the ACA website cost that didn't work. Just goes to show government is not a efficient or accountable enity

All I know is that my insurance premiums went up over 100%. Yes I one that retired early and have to pay for the insurance, but so many persons where put into the Medicare program that don't meet the same requirements I need to meet. I cannot even buy into the program, but my employer and me have paid into the program for years.