If Not For Medicare, How Would Seniors Get Health Care?

[Eva_Luna]

I’ve been in the full-time professional workforce for just about 20 years, in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors, and have never once worked for an employer that offered retiree health coverage. What percentage of American workers can say the same?

And what would you do about people who work for a variety of employers throughout their careers, a few of which offer retiiree health coverage, but the vast majority who don’t? Or people who work for an employer who does, but not long enough to be vested? Most Americans don’t spend their entire career with a single employer, even those who would like to.

[Broomstick]

[quoteIf Not For Medicare, How Would Seniors Get Health Care?[/quote]

A lot of them simply wouldn’t get care. And a subset of those would die from lack of care.

[panache45]

I have no insurance, due to the fact that I’m self-employed and have pre-existing conditions. But I’ll be eligible for Medicare in 8 months. If it weren’t for Medicare, I’d just continue what I’m doing now . . . pay for every damn thing myself, and put off expensive surgeries that I need.

[dropzone]

I am 55 and was “laid off” 13 months ago. My insurance, and that of my diabetic wife and epileptic daughter, expired a couple weeks later.

I am neither a woman nor pregnant, so my “public aid” amounts to diddly squat. Theirs ain’t much better, but we qualify for refills on some of my daughter’s meds. For everything else we depend on Target’s “kindness toward strangers.”

Therefore, my options, for myself, consist of hoping I have no problems or hoping they kill me quickly.

I would like to offer to all of those who opposed a public option because they saw it as creeping socialism a semi-hearty “fuck you.” It’d be more hearty but I don’t dare. Y’see, my heart and all.

[emacknight]

I am quite serious about this question. Let’s just say that hypothetically there is a repeat of Hillary-care and Republicans sweep the House and Senate in the fall of 2010. For the next two years Barak HUSSAIN Obama fails to fulfill any of his promises leading to a Republican victory in 2012. The deficit continues to climb, there is a lot of residual anger about the failure to get UHC and to fix health care, combined with the Teabagger movement to fight against anything government, so they decide to cut Medicare (or perhaps phase it out over 4 years).

What would actual options look like for seniors? So far we have the possibility that some companies might offer a retirement plan. We know that some seniors will die. Is that it?

I know from my previous threads about health care that there are a significant number of dopers that hate UHC, hate government run stuff, hate paying taxes, and hate paying for other people’s stuff. Where are you with ideas?

What is the end result? You have your dream come true, what do you personally plan to do in 20-30 years?

[Starving_Artist]

Medicare isn’t going to end. Period. People are so heavily invested in it after having to pay into it all their working lives that any politician seeking to eliminate it would face voter wrath like you’ve never seen before, and politicans know that. Same with Social Security. By the time people reach retirement age they will have been forced to pay huge sums into both programs and they will have done so for the previous 40 to 45 years. They will feel strongly entitled to the benefits of these programs accordingly, and, as I said in the post you referenced in the OP, they would be bereft of alternatives because the government both promised to provide them with support when they reached retirement age and took from them all their working lives funds they could have otherwise used to support themselves in their old age.

As far as what conservatives would do without these programs, they would likely do what they did before: invest and save and pay their own way when they retire. Many would continue to work right up until the end. These programs didn’t come about because conservatives needed them, they came about because people who weren’t conservatives needed them.

[Bricker]

@dropzone

I am 55 and was “laid off” 13 months ago. My insurance, and that of my diabetic wife and epileptic daughter, expired a couple weeks later.

I am neither a woman nor pregnant, so my “public aid” amounts to diddly squat. Theirs ain’t much better, but we qualify for refills on some of my daughter’s meds. For everything else we depend on Target’s “kindness toward strangers.”

Therefore, my options, for myself, consist of hoping I have no problems or hoping they kill me quickly.

I would like to offer to all of those who opposed a public option because they saw it as creeping socialism a semi-hearty “fuck you.” It’d be more hearty but I don’t dare. Y’see, my heart and all.

So you make the debate personal.

Well, I’m sorry for your problems, dropzone. But why do you believe that the sickness of you, your wife, and your daughter is my responsibility to pay for? I’m sure you’re angry and upset because you, and they, are ill and are facing uncertainty about paying for it. But seriously, answer this: why do you assume that you’re entitled to have other people pay for this care? Obviously you want that to happen. But you’re not asking – you’re demanding. You’re saying, in effect, that you’re entitled to this, that you have a RIGHT to it.

Why?

[Dangerosa]

@Eva_Luna

I’ve been in the full-time professional workforce for just about 20 years, in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors, and have never once worked for an employer that offered retiree health coverage. What percentage of American workers can say the same?

And what would you do about people who work for a variety of employers throughout their careers, a few of which offer retiiree health coverage, but the vast majority who don’t? Or people who work for an employer who does, but not long enough to be vested? Most Americans don’t spend their entire career with a single employer, even those who would like to.

I think I’m a little older than you. My second job (started around 1990) had retiree health benefits when I started. They were dropped while I was there and I got “paid out” (about $500, IIRC since I’d only been there a few years and time value of money). Union employees didn’t have their dropped as it was in their contract.

Since the company then got sold a decade after I left in a manner that allowed them to completely screw their union employees - leaving them without benefits at all - I think I got lucky to not “plan” on retiree health benefits.

[Perciful]

@Dangerous

I think I’m a little older than you. My second job (started around 1990) had retiree health benefits when I started. They were dropped while I was there and I got “paid out” (about $500, II RC since I’d only been there a few years and time value of money). Union employees didn’t have their dropped as it was in their contract.

Since the company then got sold a decade after I left in a manner that allowed them to completely screw their union employees - leaving them without benefits at all - I think I got lucky to not “plan” on retiree health benefits.

My company went non union in the W’s. From that point on their was no retirement except for a 401K you could fund. I made a ton investing in company stock. It split twice. Our CEO was involved in a scandal and lost half over night. So if you have a 401k for retirement keep at least 75 percent in bonds. I wish I played it safer.

[Broomstick]

@Bricker

Well, I’m sorry for your problems, dropzone. But why do you believe that the sickness of you, your wife, and your daughter is my responsibility to pay for? I’m sure you’re angry and upset because you, and they, are ill and are facing uncertainty about paying for it. But seriously, answer this: why do you assume that you’re entitled to have other people pay for this care? Obviously you want that to happen. But you’re not asking – you’re demanding. You’re saying, in effect, that you’re entitled to this, that you have a RIGHT to it.

Why?

Presumably, dropzone paid premiums for years that paid not only for care for his family but also for other families. He paid taxes for years that went to help other people who were poor or whatever. Years and years he paid into the system that helped other people.

Now, when he and his need help, he’s basically told “tough shit”.

Some people DO get a free ride on the taxes/premiums/etc other pay in, other people get nothing after paying into the system for decades.

You don’t see anything wrong, unbalanced, or at least annoying about that?

[dropzone]

@Bricker

So you make the debate personal.

Well, I’m sorry for your problems, dropzone. But why do you believe that the sickness of you, your wife, and your daughter is my responsibility to pay for? I’m sure you’re angry and upset because you, and they, are ill and are facing uncertainty about paying for it. But seriously, answer this: why do you assume that you’re entitled to have other people pay for this care? Obviously you want that to happen. But you’re not asking – you’re demanding. You’re saying, in effect, that you’re entitled to this, that you have a RIGHT to it.

Why?

Yes, I do believe that I have a RIGHT to continue living, as described in our Declaration of Independence. That RIGHT comes before liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Most civilized nations, and some that aren’t so civilized, realize that it makes economic sense to have healthy workers who can switch jobs without needing to take into account health care. In this country older and less healthy workers and their families are held in virtual bondage by the health care system. However, it’s all we have and if something beyond our control, like a depression, takes away the job through which we had health insurance we should not be left bereft. Getting laid off should not be a death sentence.

And, counsellor, outside of a courtroom ALL debate is personal. Lawyers may whore their debating skills out to whoever is paying them, but you can be sure the debate is personal to their johns.

[Ruminator]

@dropzone

Yes, I do believe that I have a RIGHT to continue living, as described in our Declaration of Independence. That RIGHT comes before liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Incorrect.

You left out the context of those 3 rights.

The “life, liberty, pursuit of happiness” is an enumeration of “inalienable rights” – which means they are (God given) rights you’d naturally have even if you were by yourself on an island. You can’t twist it to mean that other folks must surrender a portion of their productive output for your needs. If you were on an island, there would be no other person to confiscate the output of – but you’d still have your inalienable rights.

[adhay]

@emacknight

It almost seems ironic that the conservative answer to health care is, “get rid of Medicare, and replace it with unions.”

And don’t forget to add, without collective bargaining and no right to strike.

As far as the OP goes, retired without Medicare and Medicaid, I simply could not have afforded to get several skin cancers diagnosed and removed early, probably resulting in my not being around to write this.

[Bricker]

@Broomstick

Presumably, dropzone paid premiums for years that paid not only for care for his family but also for other families. He paid taxes for years that went to help other people who were poor or whatever. Years and years he paid into the system that helped other people.

Now, when he and his need help, he’s basically told “tough shit”.

He didn’t pay any taxes that helped people receive subsidized health care. I see you slipped in “poor or whatever” as a substitute, as though all “help” is equal. He paid insurance premiums to be covered by insurance. During the time he was paying the premiums, he was in fact covered by insurance. Then he stopped being covered, and he stopped paying.

Some people DO get a free ride on the taxes/premiums/etc other pay in, other people get nothing after paying into the system for decades.

Yes. That’s how insurance works. If I wreck someone’s new Mercedes a week after starting my new car policy, I will have paid perhaps $100 to the insurance company and they will pay (on my behalf) $50,000 to the owner of the car I wrecked. If I don’t have any wrecks for ten years, then I will have paid my insurance company lots of money and gotten no claims money back. But I will have gotten covered for the risk of claims during that time. That’s what I’m paying for. That’s the system. It’s not unjust.

You don’t see anything wrong, unbalanced, or at least annoying about that?

No. I want the company to agree to cover me in case something happens. That’s what they charge to do so. I don’t think they – or you – or the country at large – is responsible for paying for my costs. Why should any of you be responsible for me, or my family?

[dropzone]

@Ruminator

Incorrect.

You left out the context of those 3 rights.

The “life, liberty, pursuit of happiness” is an enumeration of “inalienable rights” – which means they are (God given) rights you’d naturally have even if you were by yourself on an island. You can’t twist it to mean that other folks must surrender a portion of their productive output for your needs. If you were on an island, there would be no other person to confiscate the output of – but you’d still have your inalienable rights.

Ah, the old Libertarian “taxation is confiscation” argument. Generally held by deeply selfish and self-centered people who say “screw you” to the rest of society. You know: Libertarians.

[Bricker]

@dropzone

Yes, I do believe that I have a RIGHT to continue living, as described in our Declaration of Independence. That RIGHT comes before liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Declaration of Independence is not a source of substantive legal rights.

And how might it be so? If you’re hit by a bolt of lightning, shall we outlaw storms? That “right” to life does not compel others to pay for your care – does it?

Most civilized nations, and some that aren’t so civilized, realize that it makes economic sense to have healthy workers who can switch jobs without needing to take into account health care. In this country older and less healthy workers and their families are held in virtual bondage by the health care system. However, it’s all we have and if something beyond our control, like a depression, takes away the job through which we had health insurance we should not be left bereft. Getting laid off should not be a death sentence.

And presumably “most civilized nations” enacted those policies by legislative process. And presumably their citizens were free to speak out against those ideas, as I am doing here.

And, counsellor, outside of a courtroom ALL debate is personal. Lawyers may whore their debating skills out to whoever is paying them, but you can be sure the debate is personal to their johns.

Nice. Well, the point I was making was simply that if you wish to develop national policy based on sympathy for your ailing family, than your opposition is free to say that their sympathy for your plight does not extend to an agreement to pay for your plight; that your misery does not translate to a license to become a co-signatory on our bank accounts.

[Bricker]

@dropzone

Ah, the old Libertarian “taxation is confiscation” argument. Generally held by deeply selfish and self-centered people who say “screw you” to the rest of society. You know: Libertarians.

Selfish? Let’s see… one of you is saying, “Pay for your own costs, and mine too, because I deserve it!” and the other is saying, “Why don’t we each cover our own expenses?”

Which is selfish?

[dropzone]

@Bricker

Nice.

I actually like and appreciate lawyers. Hell, my father and brothers are/were lawyers. But I know their professional services are to the highest bidder so I just don’t hold them in as great esteem as they do. But it would be hard to respect lawyers as much as they respect themselves.

I pay my taxes happily. Yes, that’s one of those differences between liberals and conservatives. I see the good my money does and am glad to help out. However, after 40 years of paying in I find myself needing some of that help until I can go back to paying in. That’s not selfish, it’s just fair.

[Sandwich]

@Bricker

…But seriously, answer this: why do you assume that you’re entitled to have other people pay for this care? …

It’s the price they have to pay to have me respect their property rights (to the extent that there is anything left once my health care needs have been met). Bear in mind that I have the right to bear arms, so both our ‘inalienable’ rights to life are contingent: I will shoot you and take ownership of your assets to pay for my health care rather than wait to die.*

Sandwich

• happy to adopt a more cooperative policy if you are.

[Broomstick]

@Bricker

He didn’t pay any taxes that helped people receive subsidized health care.

Blatantly untrue. Medicaid - which does pay for the insurance of many (though not all) poor people is supported by tax money. EVERYONE who pays taxes, state or Federal, really does help subsidize Medicaid. Where did you think the money for that came?

But as dropzone points out, you can pay those taxes all your life, then become poor through job loss and still not get Medicaid no many how years you paid into the system.

Note: I said MedicAID, not MediCARE - Medicare is supported through a slightly different taxation method but is available to all IF you make it to 65 or are decreed disabled enough to access it.

So, in addition to his health care premiums he was paying TAXES to support MEDICAID which he himself can not get despite being poor now.

You, yourself, right now are paying taxes, some portion of which goes to support Medicaid which, as I presume you are male, it is highly unlikely you will EVER be able to get even if you are destitute because of the way the rules for that program are written. You’re basically paying premiums for an insurance program that will only cover other people, it will never cover any claim of yours.

You still don’t see a problem with that?

There are two ways to fix that, really - either abolish the program and accept that there will be a lot more people who will die or suffer horribly, or else change the rules so they are more equitable and someone such as dropzone, who paid into the system, can qualify for the system when he is truly needful.

That’s why people proposing UHC keep trying to hammer home that you are ALREADY paying for the poor and uninsured and it makes far more sense to bring everyone into the same system that to continue on in the half-assed manner we have been doing so. Because our current “system” of damn the hindmost but, oh, wait, we must compel emergency rooms to eat the cost of preventable emergencies because we don’t find it acceptable people to really die just doesn’t work long term. Since people can’t stomach death and disease in reality then we might as well figure out how to cover everyone efficiently.