Medicare is an all-inclusive heath insurance program for the elderly and the disabled with age of sixty fiver years and above. It is run by the government, which makes it an inexpensive medical care plan. However, to make the most out of it, there are many costs associated with the plan such as premiums, coinsurances, deductibles, and others. However, to cut down these costs into minimum, Medicare supplement are offered by several companies.

Medicare supplement plans, more commonly called as Medigap plans, are private plans intended to work alongside with the main Medicare insurance plan, and to pay for the costs leftover, such as coinsurances. These also provide extra coverage during periods of deductions. Plus, they may cover medical services that Medicare insurances cannot.

At its minimum, Medicare supplement plans must aid in covering coinsurances, offer an additional year of hospital coverage, coverage for Medicare Part B services, and the coverage for the first three pints of blood that will be needed each year.

Other Medicare supplement plans include the Part B services, hospital deductibles, skilled nursing facility coinsurances, and excess charges of the Part B, which is the amount that a beneficiary will have to pay if a doctor is not obliged to recognize terms of the Medicare insurance plan.

Medicare supplement plans purchased before 1st of June, 2010 were soon labeled from A to L.

Medicare supplement plans D, G, I, and J provide at-home recovery benefit, and plans E and J pay 0 a year for preventive-care health examinations and diagnostics. If a beneficiary purchased a plan that has changed or is terminated after 1st of June, 2010, he or she continues to receive benefits from the Medicare supplement plans just as same.

At the year 2010, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, or NAIC, made major revisions and modifications to the Medicare supplement plans system, including the elimination of plans E, H, I, and the highly-deductible plan J. Such plans are eliminated due to the reason that preventive-care and at-home recovery benefits are eliminated. Without these benefits, plans would have been redundant. However, they added a hospice benefit to all remaining plans, which covers the five percent coinsurance charged for respite care and drugs during hospice care.

Sometime during the next decade will see some changes in the U.S. Healthcare system. No telling whether these changes will have a negative or a positive effect on the population but there is speculation that with time this program will help more American’s than it will hurt. Unfortunately, many of the problems that will lie even within the new system are being caused not by the system itself by the users in the system.

Supposedly, there is a letter from a medical professional stating that many of those on Medicare and Medicaid are not truly needy people but people who are outright taking advantage of the system. They come to the emergency room with expensive clothing and electronic devices and yet they expect others to pay for their care. If you are on a tight budget you don’t have money for these luxuries, at least that is the assumption.

Granted there are many who legitimately should and need to receive assistance from the government but there are so many who choose not to work, even though they are capable, so that they can live off the assistance of the government.

Programs are implemented but not monitored and then the programs are out of control and the American taxpayers holding the bag.

These individuals should not be allowed to abuse the system. They should be denied access to using the program and be forced to find a job and work like the people who are paying for these programs designed to help the needy. In today’s economic conditions, many are working two jobs or once “stay at home” moms are entering the workforce just to pay their families’ medical premiums. Shouldn’t everyone have to pull their own weight if they are capable of working? The abuses occurring in the system are making people who have to pay for this program resentful.

At some point, Americans and some illegal aliens have begun to feel they are entitled to benefits without putting into the system, yet they find ways to have more than the necessities.

Perhaps the government needs to implement a program that monitors all the assisted programs and starts to deny benefits to those who are truly needy. Let’s get the abusers off these programs and out there working and let them pay their share of the taxes rather than always looking for a handout. The complaints regarding the new health care proposal are just beginning.

If you wish to know the amount then go online for a few health insurance quotes. They will show you quickly how much the various Health Insurance plans will be.

Families
Page 167 – 168 / Section 401.59B / Lines 18(167) – 4(168)

If the government determines at any time that your health care is not acceptable and does not meet the criteria set by the government then you will be penalized with a tax of 2.5% of your income.

COMMENT: How do you think those who have been determined to have “unacceptable” health care will respond when they are faced with an additional tax of 2.5% of their hard-earned income?  They will take the public option and enroll in goverment health care.  We should be OUTRAGED that our government would even propose to penalize us because we do not conform to their controlled health care system.  The strategy here is to move as many Americans as possible into the public option.  If it means penalizing you then Obama has no problem with that at all.

Page 489 / Section 1308

This part of the bill allows government intrusion into your marriage.  The government is going to provide citizens with marriage counseling.

COMMENT: Should we really allow the government to intervene in our marriages after watching the government destroy the nuclear family through welfare and “family planning” programs galore.  The government has no business providing marriage counselors.  Like many of the other aspects of this bill,  government marriage counseling falls into the category of assumed authority Obama believes he should have over our lives.  This is a perfect example how the government removes the responsibility from the citizen and the community, simultaneously leaving all of us with a vacuum desiring to be filled by a great leader.  If you take responsibility from people, then they are naturally going to let you have it.  Especially when you threaten to penalize them or put them in jail when they try to help; i.e.

provide care outside Obama’s glorious plans for all of us.
Page 503 – 506 / Section 1401 / Lines 13 – 25(503), 19 – 21(506)

This section deals with the governments authority to collect and store information about you.  The government may secure data from any department or agency of the United States about you as well as access your private medical records to establish registries on all citizens.  The bill further states that both “published and unpublished” data may be collected.  Private information and records about you are open for collection under this bill.

COMMENT: Privacy is a non-issue for Obama.  He doesn’t care about your privacy and will readily allow government agencies to collect any information they deem necessary to fulfill their objectives.  This is why the bill is vague in areas when it comes to the collection of information.  The open nature of the language provides for a broad interpretation, and thus allows for a wider range of acceptable ways to gather information on citizens.  At present the White House is doing this by establishing flag@whitehouse.gov.  This information collecting email address was established by the White House to gather information on those opposed to the government health care initiative.  Have you ever heard of any president in the history of the United States doing such a thing to American citizens.  He is openly asking us to report one another (our fellow Americans) to the government.  Maybe we should put up a wall, with checkpoints and everything.  We could have our very own modern day version of Checkpoint Charlie and go to meetings to better learn how to more effectively report each other to the government.  I’m still hoping Allen Funt will come out from behind a corner and tell me it’s all a big joke.

Page 768 / Section 1713 / Lines 1 – 5

The government will have a right to interfere with your family planning.  This section specifically addresses “increasing birth intervals between pregnancies.”

COMMENT: This is code for the beginnings of population control.  Why is the government concerned with people’s intervals between pregnancies, and what are they willing to do to reduce these intervals if they’re not acceptable to government standards?  Is the government going to stop people from having sex?  I don’t think so, therefore what are the other options?  Free birth control on the tax payers dime?  Free abortions, and maybe mandated in the future, on the tax payers dime?  Government regulation of your family’s activities concerning family planning?  Obama is very open about his willingness to support legislation that allows people to murder their unborn.  Why do we think he would not be willing to mandate this to control population and MEDICAL COSTS?  Children cost money, and under a government run system, children are a cost nuisance.

Page 769 / Section 1714

“State eligibility option for family planning services”

COMMENT: Take some time and do a little research on the internet into Planned Parenthood, a current program run by the government.  Look at the relationship between Planned Parenthood and the pro-abortion movement.  You might be surprised with what you find.  This bill will extend the power of a Planned Parenthood type of program, only increasing it’s power and scope.  If you are thinking about starting a family, be afraid.  On another note, it’s none of the government’s business about your plans for a family.

There is a common theme out there that Health Care Costs are on the rise again and what is usually followed after that particular statement is that the costs can’t possibly maintain their upward trend at this rate.

But could they?

Instead of tackling the issue of Health Care Costs at the point of what the insurers charge or at the point of the enormous expense it is for doctors to get a degree (most have roughly 0,000 in debt 5 years after graduating) or even the amount that lawyers/lawsuits (Tort Reform could fix) contribute to overall costs we will take a look at a wider issue:

Physician Shortages.

Studies have shown, the latest from the American Association of Medical Colleges, that we face a shortfall of more than 150,000 doctors over the next 15 years and this all stems from the same Association who back in 1994 predicted a surplus of 165,000 doctors by 2000.

As a result of concerns over physician surpluses, many medical colleges instituted enrollment freezes. From 1980 until 2005, enrollment in medical schools remained virtually unchanged, even though the country’s population increased by nearly a third.

 

With some even more troubling news from the AAMC is that out of the total shortage of physicians more than a third of the shortfall will be in the area of Primary Care Physicians by 2025 (37% of the overall physician shortage, or about 46,000 FTE primary care doctors). This is consistent with the primary care projections recently published by Jack Colwill of Health Affairs, where they expect a shortage of up to 44,000 generalists by 2025.

 

The general answer to this issue is usually the call for a Nationalized Health Care System but the AAMC is stating that “Universal health care coverage could add 4 percent to overall demand for physicians; this would increase the projected physician shortfall by 31,000 physicians (25 percent)” (for report see AAMC PCP Points).

 

There seems to be a great quote about what is happening; “Be careful for what you wish for; you might just get it”.

 

The other real concern that we face as a nation, which is aging rapidly, is that out of the roughly 650,000 physicians currently working nearly 40% of them are 55 & older while new physicians roughly equal the number of doctors retiring (AAMC Physician Supply & Demand).

The more alarming stat to this concern is that it takes about 10 years to train a doctor.

 

Because of the ramp up of training for newer physicians it has made other studies peg the shortfall to 200,000 doctors in 2020 unless action is taken soon, while other studies are stating that beginning in 2015 the outlook could be 50 % worse than originally anticipated prior to health reform (St. Peters / Drexel Announcement 10/26/2010).

 

Another whispered issue that we face is that as our most populated generation (Baby Boomers) is quickly advancing to age 65; there are roughly 10,000 individuals turning 65 every day starting back in January 2011 and this number will continue for the next 20 years. As they are advancing towards Medicare we are starting to see physicians turn away from taking patients who are on Medicare.

 

The main cause of this some will argue is that on average physicians are reimbursed at roughly 78% of costs under Medicare, and just 70% of costs under Medicaid. Physicians must either make up for this shortfall by shifting costs to those patients with insurance — meaning those of us with insurance pay more — or treat patients at a loss.

 

As a result, more and more physicians are choosing to opt-out of the Medicare altogether. Roughly 13% of physicians will not accept Medicare patients today. Another 17% limit the number of Medicare patients they will see, a figure that rises to 31% among primary care physicians. The story is even worse in Medicaid, where as many as a third of doctors will not participate in the program.

The timing of this could not be worse, once again the largest section of our population is knocking on Medicare’s door right now needing it as their only source of Health Insurance and there is a rise of doctors no longer willing to see patients on it. This aging population will increase participation in Medicare which will mean a greater demand for physician services and we have a shortage of physicians by attrition, faulty planning and finally by economics.

 

Should we be concerned?

 

Well if we look to Health Resources and Services Administration, they explain that true shortages are when an area has a population-to-primary care physician ratio of more than 3,500-to-1, so let’s take a look at simple math.

 

We have a group of people who will be registering for Medicare at a clip of 10,000 per day for the next 20 years and they will be the ones who will be using most of the Health Care Services in the country; they total 3.65 million per year for the next 20 years or 73 million by 2031.

 

HRSA projected that by 2020, the nationwide supply of primary care physicians will be 271,440, compared with a need for 337,400 primary care physicians.

 

That leaves us with 1 physician for every 268.9 Medicare Beneficiary. If we hope that our population doesn’t increase and we add the remaining 236 million citizens not on Medicare we are left with one primary care physician for every 1,138.3 of us.

 

It’s not technically a shortage in true definitions but one might be able to see why costs will not be coming down anytime soon.

When that happens to your employees, you want to make sure that they are protected and the best way to this of course is to have in place a good health care system for employees.

Some employers think that getting a heath care system for employees is expensive. While this is true in some cases, there are insurance companies out there who provide specially designed insurance policies for small business to help employers save up on the cost of health care. Remember that there are always alternative and more affordable options. Most insurance companies will be more than willing to discuss with you on ways on how to lessen the cost of health care for your employees. Keep in mind that things are always negotiable. If you find a plan that is a bit beyond your budget, then what you can do is get in touch with the company and inquire about ways to make the plan more affordable for you.

Installing a good health plan system for employees can even save employers’ money in the long run.

This is because the cost of regular health care cost more without a heath insurance. Getting health insurance plans for your employees is a sign of being a responsible employer. Taking care of the health of your employees should be a priority. Keep in mind, that these are individuals should spend most of their productive hours to help you run your business. If there is one thins that you can do for them it is ti ensure that their health needs will be met when the time comes that they will need it.

Health care systems for employees need not be expensive. There is a way to cut cost and still get the best health plan systems for employees.

There couldn’t be a better word to describe Michael Moore’s latest film “Sicko”. Traveling through the health care world in the United States brings on a new era of realization of how “Sickening” the health insurance industry of America really is.

Almost 50 Million Americans live without health insurance in America. As bad as that is, some insurance companies make it extremely difficult to get any insurance claims at all for the rest of the 250 million Americans that do have health insurance coverage.

Sicko, documents a case where a man had accidentally sawed off two of his fingers, the index finger and the middle finger. When the man was taken to the hospital, he was given a choice – sew back the index finger for ,000 or sew back the middle finger for , 000 – his choice was to keep his index finger, and keep a place for his sacred wedding ring.

This is not an uncommon story in the American health insurance industry, as Sicko depicts that health insurance companies will do whatever it takes to deny a recipient benefit claims.

Another example from Sicko is of a child who was taken to the nearest hospital, after her high fever of 104 would not come down.

When she and her mother got to the hospital, they were informed that their HMO, Kaiser Permanente, would not cover the little girls health treatment costs, and that she has to be taken to a hospital that is affiliated with their HMO Kaiser Permanente. After arguing and desperately pleading with the hospital to treat the child there, and not transfer her to a different hospital, by the time the little girl did arrive to the HMO’s affiliated hospital, the little girl Mychelle, was pronounced “expired.”

Michael Moore also takes note of other countries health care systems compared to the American system and profiles countries such as Canada, England, and France – all which provide a free health care system.

In Canada, they can give their thanks to Tommy Douglas, who implemented the universal health care system, known as the Universal Medicare Legislation created in 1961.

In England, they have the NHS – National Health Service, which provides the majority of healthcare in England, from general practitioners to hospitals, long-term healthcare, dentistry and ophthalmology . Founded in 1948 it has become an integral part of British society, culture and everyday life.

In France, they have a system which offers unlimited sick days, vacation time starting at 4 weeks, and to top it off, free nurse and nanny care for new mothers. France was also given the title of “best health system in the world” by the World Health Organization (WHO) in June 2000.

Why is it that countries like Canada, England and France are able to offer their citizens free health care, and be so generous and kind, and then on the other side, the American system being so cruel and cold-hearted?

Sicko, explores the tragic and failing health care system in the United States of America, and can be viewed nationwide hitting the box offices on June 29th, 2007.
Read about cat cough and cat dandruff at the Sick Cat website.

 

 

Thanks to the Obama administration’s new Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), known as Cash-for-Clunkers, American taxpayers are now subsidizing car owners to do what they would have done eventually-scrap their old cars and buy new ones.

CARS is perversely profligate in numerous ways, among them the fact that car dealers must waste time filling out onerous paperwork to get reimbursed by the government and adding legal riders to contracts with car buyers regarding liability for rebates.  Mechanics must squander effort draining each car’s oil, then donning protective suits and carrying out a dangerous procedure involving pouring sodium silicate on the engines to make them “seize up” and cease to function.

This government-mandated engine genocide is a huge problem for auto parts sellers, who earn the bulk of their income reselling engines, motors, and transmissions-all of which must be intentionally damaged and made unsalable to comply with program rules.  Government inspectors will go around making sure engines have been properly desiccated, a precondition for dealers and car buyers to claim refunds.

More disturbingly, for those who can barely afford to buy a used car, the reduced supply of used engines will lead to increased, often prohibitive costs for used cars that, having been decommissioned by mechanics, cannot be resold to potential buyers.  That’s looking out for the little guy!

For those concerned about the “environmental impact” of the program, the plan unfortunately won’t help on that front, either.  According to the director of Columbia University’s Center for Climate Change Law, the energy required to produce a new car more than offsets any fuel savings from driving a used car for a few more years.  Without the program, car buyers would have ended up buying more fuel efficient vehicles anyway, because most vehicles are made to be more fuel efficient nowadays.

The one thing we can’t foresee is what those in high enough tax brackets to fund most of this program would have done with their money if they could have kept it-say, devoted it to more profitable, wealth-creating investments of their own choosing?

If all of this isn’t enough to convince you the program is a slam dunk, there’s also the matter of how it’s been administered.  Congress allotted billion and originally expected the funds to last 100 days-from July 24 to November 1.  They didn’t enact any sensible precautions on the limits of the program-say, no more than 20 clunkers bought by each of the nation’s nearly 20,000 car dealers-until the program’s impact could be measured.  This is, of course, because Congress is not managing its own money, but rather maintaining an “infinite balance sheet.”

Shockingly, Congress underestimated the cost of its new program and the rate at which people would lap up free money.  Rae Tyson, a Transportation Department spokesman, insisted on July 28, “When we get close, we will start alerting dealers so they don’t get caught with a deal in the pipeline.  We’re not going to leave them hanging.

We’re not going to run out of money in a couple days.”

Two days later-surprise!-the Transportation Department announced that the program had run out of money and would be suspended at midnight.  Tyson should have concluded his statement, “When we get close, we will start alerting dealers…  OK, now!”

So the program’s funding lasted six days.  Assuming a steady rate of access by dealers over the intended life of the program, the actual rate of use so far has been 17 times as high as lawmakers anticipated.  Were the program to be funded at its current rate until November 1, it would blow through billion.

Representative David Obey, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, speaking on behalf of lawmakers who want to dump more money into CARS, declared, “Consumers have spoken with their wallets, and are saying they like this program.”

Note to Obey: “speaking with your wallet” is usually used when the wallet owner chooses to purchase a product or service with his own money, not when he gobbles up a heavily subsidized goodie that he would have bought in a few years on his own.

Saying Cash-for-Clunkers has been “wildly successful,” as many reporters have decreed, is like saying that a program designed to give out ,000 checks to anyone who’s willing to cash them has been “wildly successful.”  Cash-for-Clunkers would have been a colossal failure if it hadn’t run out of money in less than a week.

The sudden revelation that people like free money led to confusion over continuance of the program: word got out from the Transportation Department that the program was bankrupt, but Press Secretary Robert Gibbs insisted to reporters on Friday that it would continue through the weekend and beyond.  In other words, the Obama administration, caught in a jam, simply lied, when it had no idea whether additional funding would ever be approved or not.

John McEleney, chair of the National Automobile Dealers Association, and numerous car dealers across the country have reported on the risk they face that the government will not reimburse dealers for buying clunkers, given the precarious state of program funding.  They have also complained about the confusion regarding rules and continuance of the program, contradictory statements from government, inability to make future plans, and the havoc all of this has wreaked on their businesses.  All of which augurs well for the long-term beneficial effects of CARS on the economy-because if there’s anything the market loves, it’s confusion, conflicting information, delay, and chaos!

House Minority Leader John Boehner noted, “There are a lot of questions about how the administration administered this program.  If they can’t handle something as simple as this, how would [they] handle health care?”

The Cash-for-Clunkers debacle should be viewed as a test run for Congress’ overhaul of the nation’s health care system.

Break out the sodium silicate.

Providing health care for every American does sound like a panacea, doesn’t it?

Well, while it might seem like a noble thing to do, the truth is, the government is still trying to agree on how to come up with the trillion to pay for the new plan. Even with the latest round of meetings this week, no agreement could be made.

Let’s review the three chief proposals that support this new plan-one from the White House, the Senate Finance Committee, and the House.

The House wants to slash Medicare reimbursements and limit deductions on charitable contributions. The Senate Finance Committee wants to tax the health benefits by employers and cut Medicare payments to teaching hospitals. The House wants to tax sugar-laden beverages, which contribute to national obesity. Add VAT – value-added tax on consumer goods and remove tax deductions for prescription drug advertising.

Democrats still cannot agree on a financial plan with the House proposing tax increases on income of the wealthiest Americans.

The House Ways and Means Committee is looking to add an income tax surcharge of two percent or more on Americans earning greater than ,000 annually and incrementally more for incomes of half a million and a million dollars.

Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker from California confirmed that health care benefits would not be taxed. House aides stated that proposed sales tax on sodas would probably be rejected.

All the suggested plans reflect ways that Americans are “getting squeezed” while “supporting one’s own country”.

What many people want to know is why our country in asking us to cut back, doesn’t cut back on spending for foreign aid.

Currently we spend .7 billion in one year for aid to foreign students. Reducing or eliminating this would be an easy way to raise funds.

Additionally, significant amounts of social security funds are sent to expatriates living abroad. A new ruling could be made stating that in order to maintain receiving social security payments, one must reside within our country.

Finally, by decreasing foreign aid to nations, many of which do not spend the money on its target citizens, a significant amount of money could be obtained over time.

While all these suggestions would not total trillion, it is still a start on how spending cuts that would not necessitate getting more money out of the tax payer, would significantly help close the financial gap to bring a universal health system to fruition.

The United States is engaged again in a debate on health care and the best system to provide and receive health care. Other nations across the planet have similar debates and there are different approaches to care in different countries. I add my opinions as a provider and consumer of health care to have some more fun muddying the waters.

First, it is my opinion that health care, like housing, clothing, and transportation is not a right, but a privilege. I will continue to scour the US Constitution for the right on health care, but to date I have not found it. With housing, clothing, and transportation citizens choose to purchase products based on ability to afford. There is no single car, house, or pair of pants that folks use; we are diverse based on our ability to afford. Health care really is no different.

As a provider the most frustrating thing is that I need to get permission from a complete stranger to examine and treat a patient, I am told how much I can charge, and I am further told how much I will get paid.

I wonder if anyone reading this will consider what it would be like to have to call someone to sell a pair shoes, sell a car, or to purchase a house. I wonder what it would be like for you to be told you are only permitted to sell this shoe or that house and that your commission on that sale will only be a certain percent!

It seems to me that most consumers are pretty smart and understand what they can and cannot afford. If I place my name and title on an office building the consumer may choose to solicit and pay for my services. My fees will not be unreasonable because the consumer will go to the next doctor who charges less and I will be out of business.

I will be able to work directly with the consumer who will exchange a fee for my professional service.

As a consumer, I have recently purchased a Health Savings Account (HSA) as I am self-employed. I find the ability to manage my own health account valuable and freeing. I enjoy asking the nurse or doctor how much a procedure costs and then choosing a less expensive procedure or I simply do not have the procedure. With an HSA I am able to approach utilization and purchase of health care services the way I approach other products and services in the market. I am in control.

One final opinion is that the United States is far too medicalized, too invasive, too bureaucratic, and too expensive. We have some great professionals and tremendous resources, but we neglect the simple things that can really curb disease and chronic conditions. We do not focus on exercise, nutrition, stress reduction, cognitive stimulation, and communication. We do not do enough to curb bad habits and we view all of these things as external to the “real health care system” when these are the precise behaviors that cause the medical conditions that are so expensive.

Some suggestions for health care delivery might include the following:

Put the consumer in charge of his or her health care and treat it no different than other products in the market
Create a standard basic safety net for major medical crises that will probably need to be both employer and government subsidized and that means taxpayers.
Get rid of all middle layers of the health care bureaucracy. There should not be anyone employed for precertification, preauthorization, or claims management. The doctor and the consumer will manage this as the consumer does with other products purchased everyday.
Each doctor will set his or her pricing and the consumer will decide if the prices are reasonable.
Stop dictating to doctors what procedures can and cannot be performed. They are licensed in medicine to already know what to do and do not need a bureaucrat to tell them this information.
Create products that are preventative and wellness based across the lifespan that the consumer can purchase. These products or programs should be part of the primary health care system.

President Obama got his wish last night as the House of Representatives passed his new health care bill with a vote of 219-212. The bill is being sent to the White House to be signed into law by Obama on Tuesday.

Here is a summary of the 10 major points of the health care bill and how Medicare recipients will be affected by it. These major points are covering the immediate effects the health care bill will have on Americans. Many other points of the bill will not surface until 2014.

10 key points Obamas health care bill covers:

Children may remain as dependents on their parents policy until their 27th birthday

Children under age 19 may not be excluded for pre-existing conditions

No more lifetime or annual caps on coverage

Free preventative care for all

Adults with pre-existing conditions may buy into a national high-risk pool until the exchanges come online.

Small businesses will be entitled to a tax credit for 2009 and 2010, which could be as much as 50% of what they pay for employees health insurance.

The donut hole closes for Medicare patients, making prescription medications more affordable for seniors.

All insurers must post their balance sheets on the Internet and fully disclose administrative costs, executive compensation packages, and benefit payments.

Authorizes early funding of community health centers in all 50 states. Community health centers provide primary, dental and vision services to people in the community, based on a sliding scale for payment according to ability to pay.

Effective immediately, you can’t lose your insurance because you get sick.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office gave figures for the bill, saying 8 billion will be cut from the national deficit over the next decade with this bill, even though the bill itself is estimated to cost 8 billion.

The bill is hoping to raise the amount of insured Americans by 11% (to 94%) by 2014. The huge cost of the bill will be made up by added taxes, including an increased Medicare payroll tax. This brings us to the affect the health care bill will have on Medicare beneficiaries.

As of now, in the Medicare D plan there is a coverage gap. If a Medicare beneficiary goes over the prescription drug coverage limit they have to pay for the entire prescription until it meets the catastrophic coverage threshold. The health care plan will help close this gap by giving all Medicare D beneficiaries 0 to help pay for prescriptions.

The gap will continue to close in 2011 when brand-name prescription drugs will be discounted 50%, and is expected to completely close by 2020 (Medicare beneficiaries will still have to pay for 25% of the prescription cost, but the cost itself will be substantially decreased).

Medicare hospital insurance tax rate will increase in 2012 by .9% for beneficiaries earning over 0,000 or a married couple making 0,000

Sets a new standard for Medicare payment to hospitals and doctors

Visit at http://www.retirementfinances.com for Senior Social Security.