ObamaCare is a great leap in the right direction, but there could be deficiencies that will need to be corrected. Whenever such monumental changes are made, there can be unintended effects which warrant examination. I understand that the current climate allows for little of such examination since those bent on destroying ObamaCare are circling around waiting for anything they can pick apart. But does that mean that we should not analyze the law and try to make it better if necessary?
The Medicare Supplement policies currently have substantially higher premiums than the Advantage plans, on average. If Medicare Advantage were to become eviscerated due to lack of funding to the point where they were discontinued or no longer cost effective, then their subscribers would be inclined to go on original Medicare, and thus would probably need Medicare Supplemental insurance to pay for the 20% not covered by Medicare. If significantly higher premiums were charged, it could be a hardship on a low income senior (i.e., $1000/mo) trying to protect their retirement savings in the event of a major health problem. Realize that a million dollar health condition could create a $200,000 bill, and seniors are more likely due to their age to incurr such a bill.
It would be wonderful if such people could get a subsidy, just as younger lower income people can. If not, they could end up, not totally uninsured, but insufficiently insured. How fair is it for a retired couple trying to make ends meet on their social security to not be able to afford gap coverage, and hence be more vulnerable to having their retirement savings eaten up by medical bills? In addition, if the Medicare Supplemental insurance were just $300/month higher for a couple, their retirement savings would be chewed up to the tune of $36000 within 10 years. Now suppose that all they had in assets to begin with was $50,000. Where does that leave them?
To address the pre-existing condition issue, those who wish to voluntarily switch to Medicare/Medigap, after the age of 65, may be declined due to a pre-existing condition. And anyone with a preexisting condition at age 65 who has not been recently insured must wait six months before getting covered. I did read your links, but these exceptions to this possibility all involved someone losing their coverage involuntarily, not voluntarily switching coverage, unless it's within a one year window. Although it is good to know that such protection is there, wouldn't it be nice if there were no pre-existing conditions applied to seniors in the first place, just as there are currently no pre-existing conditions applied to younger insurees? Consider someone who finds that their Medicare Advantage plan is no longer cost effective, or that they don't like the doctors available within the plan, and wants to switch to original Medicare with a Medicare Supplement plan. Such a person would be asked a series of health questions, possibly being denied the opportunity to switch from an unwanted plan. I say, let's just get rid of any notion of pre-existing condition in our healthcare system. Please!!!
All this having been said, I have learned from your post, and I really do appreciate your perspective. I have no desire to run down ObamaCare because I know how much good it will do for those who previously could not get insurance. However, I still believe that 100%-coverage-Medicare-for-all would be the preferable solution because it is an efficient, low overhead, cost effective, humane, and elegant solution. It would also put more money in the hands of the populace, thus stimulating the economy. And the public would only be contributing to direct services, not paying so much to insurance company middle men.
= new reply since forum marked as read