Skip to main content

View Diary: No 'rate shock' for Obamacare in California (204 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  and you wrote about a Medicare (0+ / 0-)

    gap policy which costs extra. So why are you pushing for medicare which requires private insurance add ons — for which there are no subsidies — unless you qualify for Medicaid?

    I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

    by samddobermann on Sat May 25, 2013 at 01:51:37 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  samddobermann, I'm sorry, not sure what you're (0+ / 0-)

      asking me.

      I never mentioned Medicaid, because none of our relatives qualified for it.  They all had excellent Medigap insurnace.  And frankly, they had money in the bank to meet the annual Medicare deductible without a Medigap policy.

      They carried the Medigap policies to cover things like open-heart surgery, etc.

      So what do I need to clarify, please?

      Mollie

      "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


      hiddennplainsight

      by musiccitymollie on Sat May 25, 2013 at 03:20:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What does not seem to penetrate (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musiccitymollie

        people's minds is that if you want to push for some type of government financing of health care Medicaid is the desirable plan to model it on, not Medicare.

        Medicaid is superior to Medicare. For one thing you don't have to buy a Medigap policy or additional private insurance to cover medications. Its coverage is broader

        I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

        by samddobermann on Mon May 27, 2013 at 04:41:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your point about Medicaid not requiring a Medigap (0+ / 0-)

          is well-taken, but I must still disagree that "Medicaid" provides the most broad, or comprehensive coverage.  It is true that some of the out-of-pocket expenses to the beneficiaries are less, than in Medicare.

          However, most of the Medicaid programs today require beneficiaries to pick up some of the expense--although the original program, didn't.

          That is most definitely true in Tennessee.

          I also want to carefully check out the 'MERP' protocal.  This can be very tricky for folks age 55 and older.  [That is the Medicaid Asset Recovery Program.]

          I'm wondering if Medicaid coverage, beginning in 2014, will be as broad or comprehensive as you seem to believe.  (I'm not arguing that you're wrong--I'm simply still checking it out).

          I'll post what I can find in a diary soon.  I'm trying very hard to get 'specifics' on both the Medicaid and Medicare programs, beginning in 2014.

          Please check out this excerpt from an earlier comment of mine, regarding TennCare (the Medicaid equivalent for Tennessee).  It is presently among the MOST RESTRICTIVE in the nation.  

          I think that you'll agree that, as it is--it would be unacceptable.

          Hey, I truly want everyone to have decent healthcare--not just insurance 'access.'  

          Hopefully, 'we commenters' will continue to exchange information and ideas in this forum.  

          And in doing so, we may build the will to collectively continue to advocate for improvement, as needed, in the ACA.

          I hope so . . .  

          Or maybe even a 'comprehensive' Medicare-For-All [MFA} system, that pays all expenses (aside from an annual deductible and/or very reasonable co-pays).  After all, the framework in already in place.

          And more importantly, it is an equitable program.  The CEO of the boardroom, get the same coverage as the custodian.

          That's the 'main reason' that many folks prefer MFA, over the ACA, BTW.

          Here's the excerpt from a Memphis, TN newspaper, when these cuts took place in 2005.

          snip

          TennCare To Lose 323,000 Enrollees

          [Democratic Governor] Bredesen takes drastic step, but children won't be dropped

          NASHVILLE - About one-fourth of TennCare's 1.33 million enrollees will be cut from the health insurance program in the next 12 months - some as soon as May 1 - under a huge downsizing, Gov. Phil Bredesen said Monday. . . .

          All adults who aren't eligible for Medicaid - which covers the poor and disabled - will lose their coverage.

          That primarily includes those who can't get private health insurance because their employers don't offer it, they can't afford it or they have pre-existing conditions.

          Adults still covered by TennCare face benefit cuts.

          Starting about May 1, they'll be limited to:

              12 doctor visits a year.

              20 in-patient hospital days a year.

              10 lab and X-ray services a year.

              Four pharmacy prescriptions a month.

          TennCare today has no limits on those services.

          Those set to be cut include: 121,000 uninsured people the state describes as mostly healthy, 67,000 who can't get private health insurance because of pre-existing health conditions, 97,000 with incomes too high for Medicaid coverage but whose health bills are more than they can afford, and 3,000 people also covered by Medicare. . . .

          snip

          Mollie

          "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


          hiddennplainsight

          by musiccitymollie on Mon May 27, 2013 at 11:56:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site