Part B. Part A is automatic once you reach 65.
Onmiscient, I don’t know how you conclude that I don’t support universal health care. You might take a moment to re-read my post and then get back to me.
Some people actually have to actively enroll in Part A, even people for whom it’s free (I think if you’re not collecting Social Security yet you might have to actively enroll). But if you didn’t have Part B because you already had group coverage through a spouse or employer, you shouldn’t have to pay a late enrollment penalty to get Part B. That would also get you out of a LEP for joining a Medicare Advantage or Part D plan.
Where did you see me accuse you of that? I quoted your post, I read it. I specifically said “people in your situation” to specifically exclude you but refer to those who share your past history but not your common sense views.
Pot, meet kettle.
I wonder if they think they’ll be able to negotiate an AARP discount if they get in on the ground floor. 
Not at all: hypocrisy is not the sole province of the elderly, nor is gullibility. However, suggesting that health care should be taken away because someone’s opinion doesn’t match his own (as the OP does, and you apparently agree with) certainly does suggest marginalization and police-state tactics. Additionally, he’s provided no facts or figures to support his statements, other than to make a vague reference to “the recent debate.”
The anger should be directed at those who are doing the manipulating, rather that at those who are the targets. If the left can’t muster up the energy to provide convincing counter-arguments to the right’s bullshit, then they deserve to have the legislation and the elections shoved up their asses. Making the elderly the scapegoat, even in a thread this stupid, is just a cheap shot.
This was you direct replied to Auntie Pam when she asked you what I should do. If you are willing to suggest that I support universal health care, I take that to mean that you think that, at present, I do not support universal health care. Just to be clear, I do support universal health care and have for years. And to be even more clear, I’d suggest you save your condescending and your sarcasm for someone who needs them; I do not and I resent having that kind of supercilious crap thrown my way.
But if we got rid of it, how could most people who are currently on it afford the care they need? By saving up their pennies?
Clothahump doesn’t care and wouldn’t answer you even if he did.
You could die and the you would not jeopardize CLOTHAHUMPS money. Compared to your life it is an easy decision for him.
You apply on line at age 65. It will cost about 100 bucks a month. Then there is 20 percent which may not be covered. There are insurance companies that sell a policy to cover the 20 percent. The newspaper ran a section last week showing that all the policies in Michigan will go up about double. So it would cost you another 250 a month for that. Then of course prescriptions will cost you. It is not a free ride.
The insurance companies that sell the policies to cover the 20% are offering Medigap policies. They also sometimes cover other “gaps” in Medicare. They’re kind of a raw deal, though - yes, they cover the gaps in Medicare, but if you don’t join when you have guaranteed issue, they can refuse you. They can also participate in medical underwriting. And you’re right - they don’t include prescription drugs since Part D was launched in 2006.
If you go with a Medicare Advantage plan with prescription drug coverage (MA-PD), the plan is required to provide at least the same type of medical coverage offered under traditional Medicare (A & B) plus drug coverage as good as or better than Part D (prescription drug coverage, which covers most classes of Rx’s), and they have to give the coverage to you at the same price offered to everyone else in the service area.
It’s definitely not a free ride, but lots cheaper than Medigap plans, which generally offer a range of cost and can penalize you for getting older. Plus, they can refuse you if you don’t join when you’re first eligible (unless you have a special enrollment period), while a MA plan can only refuse you if you have end stage renal disease and a Part D plan can’t refuse you at all. You can’t have Medigap and Medicare Advantage at the same time. And Medigap plans are no longer allowed by law to provide prescription drug coverage - since Part D does that, it’s considered double dipping, I think.
Oh, and neither Medicare Advantage nor Medicare Part D can participate in medical underwriting - you pay the same amount as everyone in your area getting the same plan no matter how sick or healthy you are. And some MA plans include dental and vision, too, though it almost always costs extra. If you get an MA plan, you still have to pay your Part B premiums (as Gonzomax said, about $100 a month for most people - I believe the 2010 premium is $110.50), but there are lots of MA plans that offer coverage at a pretty decent price (tacked onto your Part B premium, of course) and include more coverage than just traditional Medicare.
Sorry for the long post - I managed Part D and MA-PD plans for several years. I’m not saying any of this in a professional capacity (I do more Medicare and health reform regulatory affairs now) - just speaking from some amount of experience with the products.
If it were me, I’d get traditional Medicare because you have to in order to be eligible for the other stuff, then I’d sign up for a MA-PD, because I have never liked Medigap plans. In my opinion, they’re more confusing than Medicare Advantage or Part D (or the two combined, which is what an MA-PD is) because they’re regulated both federally and by state law, and there’s more room for a company to screw you over since they have more wiggle room in pricing. But that’s just me.
As for Medicare, if they’d make it less freaking confusing for the people who actually use it or want to use it, I think that’d go a long way toward correcting many of the misunderstandings that surround it. Some of the plans are actually pretty decent.
There are some things to consider about seniors:
Seniors, on average, have much higher medical expenses than younger people. Between doctors’ visits and prescriptions and surgeries, it adds up to quite a lot. Many seniors are on fixed incomes, sometimes just Social Security, which is a pittance. And most seniors know people who have gone bankrupt due to medical expenses . . . or died, because they couldn’t afford adequate treatment. Add to that, the fact that Medicare can be damn confusing . . . and life itself can be damn confusing at that age, especially since things keep changing, and for many people it’s the first time in their lives that they’re not fully in control of things . . . which leads to serious insecurity. Getting old can be really scary, and when you’re feeling insecure and scared you tend to hold very tight to whatever you’ve got.
Well sure, but thanks to global warming, we’re running out of ice floes to put seniors on. One or the other, you know?
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
But the elderly are fighting to deny those of us under 65 the same option they take for granted. And for those of us in our 20s and 30s who merely want the option of picking a public plan, knowing the elderly who have a single payer plan are trying to take that right away from us is infuriating. The elderly (generally) are fighting to prevent me from having a watered down version of what they feel they are entitled to. Universal public healthcare. It is like someone who drives (and feels entitled to) a Porsche is trying to take away your right to buy a Mazda with your own money. God, I’m good with metaphors. Who wants to high five me?
And you are right, black people voted to take gay people’s rights away. Which is why Julian Bond who heads the NAACP came out in favor of gay marriage saying “Black people, of all people, should not oppose equality, and that is what gay marriage is”. And there was tons of rage among the LGBT community and progressives towards black voters after proposition 8, because people felt betrayed.
I hate to do this, but cite? Is the AARP lobbying against the public option? They don’t speak for all of us, or maybe even most of us.
Maybe they don’t see this as a right, just a political fight about money. They are gonna get theirs by naked political power, and if you want to get yours, you gotta vote for it too. If you are feasting on a corpse, it doesn’t matter who made the kill, you want to keep others from joining the feast, beause it means more for you.
That is also why they get rejected by health care companies. If Medicare was killed, the elderly would have no coverage at all. Insurance companies do not want them and will not cover them . Since a majority of foreclosures include a health cost problem, what would canceling Medicare do to the health of the economy and the senior citizens? They would lose their homes faster than they are now.
After re-reading this thread and this specific post by you, I owe you an apology for my subsequent replies to you. Therefore, I do apologize and I sincerely hope you will accept.
But the ‘pot, meet kettle’ thing was what raised my ire.
Apparently, the AARP is in favor of the public option. Or at least, they are in favor of the House version of the plan, whatever that is. They just formally announced their support.