You would have Private Health Insurance, Medicare and the Public Option.


If private health insurance companies cannot discriminate, poor people are getting subsidies to buy health insurance, and there is a public option, maybe there is less of a need for Medicaid.

This would save money because instead of paying nothing for Medicaid some people would pay a premium, and would not be limited in terms of income and assets.

I'm not advocating this position, just want to know what people think.

...of something as yet completely undefined and ambiguous?

No.

I'll withhold judgment until there's something to compare.

...and a public-option insurance policy with a 100%-of-premiums-and-out-of-pocket subsidy?

who participate in a public option. However, not everyone who receives Medicaid is necessarily poor. They rely on Medicaid out of necessity. Under a public option some of these people would be able to pay a premium if it was affordable.

Sounds like a shitty idea then. Id rather have it government funded, such that the upper quintiles are funding the health, rather than coming out of the pockets of the lower wage earners.

Then it gets regressive. Also, it depends on how the subsidies are funded compared to how Medicaid is funded. What quintiles are contributing to the bulk of the funding?

For taxpayers. Insurance companies add an estimated 30% "administrative fees" to the cost of health coverage while Medicare (I don't know the figures for Medicaid but suspect they are roughly the same) adds less than 3%. The 30% costs pay for the immense salaries and benefits of the insurance CEOs and for the bloated corporate infrastructure that exists to deny coverage.

The US spends a higher percentage of our GDP on health care than any other industrialized country in the world. That means less of our GDP is spent on infrastructure, education or any number of other parts of our economy than we could be spending. Instead, that money is going into the bloated health insurance industry where it does not improve our country just enriches a very small part of our society

no money would be "saved" by having former medicaid recipients pay a premium. money would be made, & poor people would be harrassed & fined when they couldn't pay their "premiums".

I am on SSD, Medicaid and Medicare, PLUS ADAP to fill in the gaps.
My meds cost 5 x my ssd, if I had to only pay the deductions I would have nothing to live on my deductible is more than my SSD because my work life was cut short I have to live on 1/3 poverty level..

Some folks depend entirely on social security. That would be giving with the left hand and taking back with the right -- foolish and futile.

necessity, wouldn't it be better if they paid something, and were not limited to $2,000 per month and $2,000 in total assets? Maybe they can make $3,000 per month and pay an affordable premium and still have health security.

Can you tell me where to find out about the not-poor people on Medicaid?

Where would a single mother on minimum wage with three chilren get money to buy insurance? You say we would subsidize. First we would take the money via insurance premiums, and then we would give it back in subsidies. I stick by No. -- foolish. futile.

because they have a host of Medical problems that prevent them from affording private insurance. They could pay something if it was reasonable and they would not be limited as to how much they could make.

Medicaid is ONLY for the poor. If you make too much money, you will get kicked off of it, period. I was on Medicaid and I made about $100 more for the year than I was supposed to, and I not only got kicked off of it, they billed me $5,000 too. The $5,000 was for the medical that they had paid for from the first of the year. You have to qualify EVERY year for medicaid, which means bank statements for the entire year. And, on top of that, if someone gives or lends you money, in that year, you can also be kicked off and billed, if that puts you over the income limit.

But, Medicaid is not totally run by the government. I qualify for Medicaid again, due to being on disability. You have "plans" that you must choose. My choices are Total Care, United Healthcare, Fidelis Care and HMO Blue Option. From what I gather, whatever the "health plan" you choose doesn't pay for, the government then pays for it. If you choose Fidelis Care and your primary doctor doesn't take Fidelis Care, then you can't go to him/her. I'm in New York and it may be different from state to state, but Medicaid IS dictated by your income.

zalinda

Some people lower their income intentionally to qualify for Medicaid. They could make more money but they stay within a limit because they need the health insurance. Wouldn't you prefer participating in an affordable public option and not having to worry about making $100 over the limit?

Obama? I won't hold my breath. I thought that at least he would put on a show of being a dem, but he's got so many repubs and blue dogs in his administration, that even I can't believe it.

zalinda

The Feds should offer everyone medicare on a sliding scale.

hour,trying to support a family of 5. He receives medicaid for the kids,he and wife have no insurance at all. How in the world could he afford any kind of a premium?

if he gets a job that pays $15 - 17 per hour, he could pay something. Does he want to be constrained to making $2,000 per month or perhaps he can pay something under a public option and make a little more.

won't qualify for Medicaid.

We need universal health care, not this patchwork of social programs.

Under a public option they could make more and still have a certain level of health security.

Would premiums go up for every dollar over the minimum earned? How much would a person have to be paid to earn and keep more than $9.00/hour? Maybe this wouldn't a bad deal, if it's offered as the public option. How would premiums be capped?

premium? Wouldn't that be more effective than subsidies?

with the public option. The public option would be an easier sell, if Medicaid was phased out.

We could merge Medicaid, Medicare and SCHIP programs under the whole-health umbrella. It does get frustrating looking for alternative answers when the best one is staring us right in the face. But as compromises go, this doesn't seem like a bad one.

the destitute, people with no income but the dole and who own no property. The $1500 property limit in this state was reasonably generous in 1965, when it was set up, but inflation has severely limited the number of people who qualify 44 years later.

The public option would apply to Medicaid patients only with a 100% payment by the state. There is no way a present Medicaid patient could possibly contribute anything.

As I have said earlier, some people can pay something if it is reasonable. Paying $20 - $50 per month is better than paying nothing. Everyone needs to give up something, if we are going to have a public option. I don't think it's realistic to have both Medicaid and a Public Option, given the budget deficits.

and require people to pay a premium. Paying even $20-50 per month is better than paying nothing. We need to disassociate the economic aspects of health care from the medical necessity aspect.