tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7162206974728931335.post2313971342551694566..comments2024-03-28T08:20:11.686-05:00Comments on Daughter Number Three: A Medicare Primer from Ed LottermanDaughter Number Threehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08171356533232458827noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7162206974728931335.post-64530268653344805732015-09-13T14:48:15.878-05:002015-09-13T14:48:15.878-05:00I think Mr. Lotterman's comments are a strong ...I think Mr. Lotterman's comments are a strong argument for Medicare to exercise its power and influence in the healthcare marketplace and lead the way to reducing healthcare costs. It's done a lot already by negotiating pay rates with hospitals and other medical providers (doctors, clinics, radiologists, etc.), as well as with the pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies, but I think it can do more by making their pay rates standard for the industry. That is, their pay rates also apply to private insurance. It could be a first step in transitioning the country to a single-payer insurance system.Ginahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14661278900773185119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7162206974728931335.post-889874143076645292015-09-07T05:16:58.190-05:002015-09-07T05:16:58.190-05:00Because you say the article has not been published...Because you say the article has not been published yet I will take your word for what it says. Mr. Lotterman is wrong. <br /><br />It is true that for Mr. Lotterman's parents and especially for his grandparents if they were in alive in 1965, Medicare was a “welfare” program. Providing that amazing financial benefit for people born before 1940 (especially for those born before 1900—everyone initially on Medicare) was a conscious bipartisan decision of the 1965 Congress. They did it that way rather than structuring Medicare the way FDR structured Social Security in 1935 (no payouts until 1940 when the fund had been built up) because they felt that in a few short years everyone in the country of all ages would be on Medicare. Of course that did not happen and because of subsequent legislative and bureaucratic changes to Medicare (higher tax rates, fewer benefits), Mr. Lotterman and anyone turning 65 now has paid on average for his or her Medicare benefits completely. (Of course no one actually wants to get any Medicare benefits but averaging costs is how insurance works.)<br /><br />Not sure if they are Lotterman errors or illogical statements or yours but:<br /><br />-- The “three times as much benefits” claim that you say Mr. Lotterman made does not count the income taxes he paid over 50 years into the Part B trust fund nor does it count the pooling effect of any insurance plan (sadly many people die before using any benefits)<br /><br />-- The employer did not pay anything into the Part A trust fund. The way you paid was simply bifurcated <br /><br />-- Yes, the Part A pre-paid premium rate has been frozen for 25 years but payroll incomes have skyrocketed and the amount of payroll income subject to that tax has not risen as you or Mr. Lotterman say; it is and has been unlimited over that time period<br /><br />Not mentioned, the cost of services paid for with Part A fund money has moderated substantially compared to the cost of services paid for with Part B trust fund moneyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12690803100199830994noreply@blogger.com