Goose wrote:

Yea,,, I dunno.

Hey, I realize that this is an oversimplification, but:
As I understand it,, under the Affordable care act 80% of those buying their own insurance qualify for a subsidy to help pay the premiums for private health insurance.
So,, A + B = C.

A = the individual's share of the private insurance premium.
B = the subsidy the government is giving him based on his income, and
C = the full private insurance  premium.

Why can't the Government;
1. Throw B into the Medicare Trust fund,,,
2. Collect A from the individual, and
3. Cover him under Medicare?

They could do that with the existing ACA plan. The reason the ACA is failing is that the insurance companies are pulling out due to not making enough money. IF rates are high enough so they actually can at least break even then the subsidy thing (with government kicking in even more) works with the ACA. You guys are trying to force a solution into something that was not designed to be universal health care but health care for elderly funded by the working population.

What you are really opining for is universal health care. It is an idea that might have come of age. BUT that means universally ALL people need to be covered including those that have current employer based insurance (and you could roll in current Medicare beneficiaries but that means changing how it is funded). I can see a lot of benefit to the whole thing IF we could do exactly that, but I am not holding my breath. Given how politics works I see about 0 percent chance of it happening. 

In the meantime fix the ACA for the people that cannot get employer insurance, but don't screw up Medicare further in attempting to do so. Medicare particulary for the population it serves and its funding formula has its own peculiar things that need to be addressed and fixed (unless we actually could get to a universal health care system that is). 

 

Last edited by tennyson (10/27/2016 2:53 pm)