Anyone Want the Law to Stay on the Books?

There is no comp paid for Medicare... or Social Security. No one uses agents to apply for either program.
Al

Are you sure?

Medicare has FOUR parts:

Part A - no comp to agents
Part B - no comp to agents
Part C - Agents are compensated
Part D - Agents are compensated.


So, 50% of the parts of Medicare actually do pay comp to agents. And that is without even getting into supplemental coverage for those who choose to remain on original Medicare.
 
Last edited:
I love your essays (as well as those of Ann H)...
I'm a good writer, but not in the HealthGuy class. Seriously, you have REAL talent (as does Ann H.) Don't waste it... If you want to talk "irony" the guy most agents here support will probably do more to end their income than the incumbent. Al

A compliment from Al3? I'm gonna turn up the country music, recline and enjoy the moment. I may need it. If Romney does more to end our income than the incumbent, I need a job where I can sit at the computer in my underwear and make 6 figures.
 
Last edited:
I would not be surprised to see President Romney meld Plan-F into Medicare and have one comprehensive drug plan for the entire country.
Al

No. Actually things are headed in the opposite direction where the government will force the consumer to have more skin in the game with the carrot of lower premiums. Plan N was a step in that direction. More to come.

Ironically, the CBO reports that one of the biggest drivers of medicare costs is medicare supplements. They are reasonably affordable and once a person has a plan such as Plan F there is really no incentive to think twice whether they want any medical option that is proposed. Problem is, whenever the consumer decides to undertake treatment it is very affordable to them but incurs the 80% (on average, example) that the government must now pay. If you didnt have the supplement you are less likely to have some treatment and the government saves the 80%.

You could be right that they will build more feature into medicare but with more copay as a way of heading people off from getting supplements but it would not be to the level of a Plan F. That would be counterproductive- fiscally anyway.
 
Plan F in particular has been targeted for a penalty beginning in 2017. I am not sure about G & N but they may also be involved.

Those currently on Medicare and those who are 60 and up (but under 65 not yet on Medicare) will be exempt from the penalty.

Those younger than 60 who will go onto Medicare 2017 and after and choose a plan like Plan F with no cost-share will be penalized. It seems that the penalty would be attached to the Part B premium but I can't remember for sure how it is assessed.
 
It seems that the penalty would be attached to the Part B premium but I can't remember for sure how it is assessed.

Makes sense.

Those who sign up for Part B and are considered "wealthy" pay a surcharge for their Part B and Part D premium. That penalty goes to Uncle.

The LEP for Part D is also something that goes to DC, not to the carrier.

As I told a guy this AM, Medicare does not require you to buy Part D, but if you fail to do so, if you ever DO purchase, you will pay a penalty tax to DC for as long as you have the plan.
 
As I told a guy this AM, Medicare does not require you to buy Part D, but if you fail to do so, if you ever DO purchase, you will pay a penalty tax to DC for as long as you have the plan.

It's not a tax just as the Obamacare tax for not buying health insurance is not a tax. It's a feature.

Rick
 
It's not a tax just as the Obamacare tax for not buying health insurance is not a tax.

You must have read the minutes from SCOTUS when Verrilli was attempting to argue it was a tax before it was a penalty.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you think the Obama administration is monitoring all the affodable health care act "chatter" today? Or is just AL3? Ohh, so spooky !
 
Back
Top