Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (13467)	11/6/1998 4:35:00 PM
From: Les H	Respond to of 67261

Privatization of Social Security has a number of different forms. One of the them stipulates a 4/8% payroll tax to support a Social Security as a means-tested welfare benefit program. The remaining 3.5/7% would be transferred to a private account which could include a menu of investment plans such as the Federal employees' savings & thrift plan. The plan-holder could transfer funds within the plan as with a 401(k) or IRA. The unions oppose individually-controlled retirement plans. The liberal organizations oppose privatization since it draws funds away from the general revenue fund. The current scheme has the "trust" invest in non-marketable securities yielding a fixed 2%. The federal budget would yield a more accurate picture of the deficits, and may result in domestic programs getting axed.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (13467)	11/6/1998 4:49:00 PM
From: Les H	Respond to of 67261

I wonder if the Democrats purposely screwed up Medicare HMOs this year to push more people into becoming uninsured and thus revive their universal health plan under the government. There's some news articles that the Democrats have already had a strategy meeting since the the election to bring up health care reform, i.e., nationalized health care, again. MEDICARE HMO CUTS CONFUSING By Robert Pear New York Times News Service October 19, 1998 WASHINGTON -- Tens of thousands of Medicare beneficiaries being dropped from health maintenance organizations suddenly have found themselves in a confusing predicament, with no reliable information about their options and no guarantee of coverage for costly prescription drugs. Moreover, the Clinton administration and the health insurance industry disagree over the rights and protections available to such Medicare beneficiaries, who receive a bewildering variety of conflicting information when they try to buy private insurance to supplement Medicare. Federal officials acknowledged that their interpretation of the Medicare law would not necessarily be accepted by all the companies that sell insurance to fill gaps in Medicare, known as Medigap insurance. Such companies are regulated primarily by the states, and officials of many said they are unfamiliar with their new obligations to consumers under federal law, as interpreted by the administration. In addition, some insurers contend that they don't have to comply with the federal insurance standards until states adopt laws and regulations to carry them out. One person affected by the changes, Anthony DeMarco, 87, a retired purchasing agent in Paso Robles, Calif., said he had been desperately trying to arrange coverage since he learned a few weeks ago that he would be dropped by his HMO. "The problem now is that I've got to go out and find something I can afford," he said. DeMarco said he had excellent coverage under an HMO for $32 a month, but probably would have to pay $114 a month for insurance to supplement the traditional Medicare program, to which he is returning. Doris Cole-Hatchard, 66, a retiree being dropped by the Oxford HMO in Rockland County, N.Y., said she was eager to get a Medigap policy covering prescription drugs because she was taking medications for angina, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. But, she said, she was "very upset" when she found that the premium would be $270 a month. HMOs in 29 states have notified the federal government that they are pulling out of Medicare or reducing their service areas on Jan. 1, in part because their costs are rising faster than expected. The actions will affect more than 414,000 beneficiaries. Elyse Politi, the Medicare managed care ombudsman in northern Virginia, said, "The biggest concern for consumers here is that they haven't received any official notices from the Health Care Financing Administration or from the HMOs about what their options will be when the HMOs terminate their Medicare contracts on Dec. 31." Beneficiaries have two basic options. They can enroll in another HMO, if one is available in their area and if it has the capacity to take new customers. Or they can enroll in the original Medicare program, with or without Medigap insurance. Federal officials emphasize that the traditional Medicare program is always available. But they acknowledge that it often costs more than an HMO, and they say there is no guarantee that beneficiaries can obtain Medigap policies covering prescription drugs, one of the biggest medical expenses for people who are elderly or disabled. In a series of questions and answers for Medicare beneficiaries, the Clinton administration says private insurance to cover prescription drugs is available, but that consumers must seek such coverage on their own. Moreover, it says, "These plans may refuse to sell you a policy based on your health status." Bonnie Burns, director of consumer education at California's statewide insurance counseling program, said Medicare beneficiaries face a grim paradox. "If you have a health condition that causes you to use prescription drugs," she said, "it's unlikely that a Medigap insurance company will sell you a new policy covering prescription drugs."