"Free Medicare For All" Not Possible in Our Lifetime [part vanity]

When I was doing my Master of Science in Business Intelligence degree I came across the below article in my research. The data comes from the Pew Research Center and is portending as to what s coming ahead. With the current pool of Democrat Presidential Candidates using the mantra "Free Medicare-for-all" they are living in the moment and not really looking forward. Several take aways stem from this article:

The current Healthcare System is set up for geriatric care in addition to the number of patients, or volume. The reduction in the age and number of patients seeking medical care means types of care that are not geriatric care is going to be the focus going forward. By the year 2030, if healthcare professionals do not diversify into other niches beyond geriatric care, there will be a huge number of layoffs. This is in addition to the closing of hospitals that cannot fill beds or do geriatric related surgeries. This does not mean geriatric care will not be needed just a large reduction in the number of caregivers and facilities to treat geriatric patients. Baby Boomer generation had a population at its peak 78.8 million compared to that of the Millennial Generation (earliest born in 1996) at its peak population is 62 million. When combined with numerous articles in 2017 stating the current birth rate of 60.2 births per 1,000 women in the age range of 15 to 44, a 30-year low in 2017, this is unsustainable for the indigenous population of the United States. This equates to approximately 2.1 children per couple and is falling year-over-year. A sustainable birth rate is around 2.4 children per couple.

What does this all mean, the "free medicare for all" just by the population numbers is and will be unsustainable going into the future. This includes those healthcare professionals who do not seek out new avenues in which to continue their careers in the healthcare industry. The United States is not the only country to face the dilemma of having an unsustainable birth rate for its indigenous population. Around the world, most Western nations, more specifically, all countries who embrace abortion as a means of birth control face the dilemma of not having a sustainable birth rate for its population. There are several mitigating factors for this reduction in addition to abortion. Women in the workforce (I am not against this) has pushed the age of women having children to the mid-thirties. Women, in favor of a professional career, who have children later in their lives have fewer children overall. When a couple takes this view, of putting off having children to focus on career, they are less likely to have greater than or equal to the required number of children needed to meet the sustainable figure. This has a ripple effect across the spectrum of the population.

First, this ripple effect means there is a lesser tax base. Meaning that there are fewer people working to make a contribution to the tax system. All opinions aside, a potential maximum workforce to maximize the taxable income is being reduced by the very people who are wanting more government entitlements. Second, this means if you are terrified that AI is going to take your job, you don't have to worry because there will not be a person in existence to replace you in your job. AI or robots, should not be feared due to the fact that the potential maximum workforce is being reduced at an alarming rate. Lastly, it will become so grossly apparent that politicians will no longer be able to kick the can down the road to fund current projects such as "free medicare for all", free tuition etc. One option is to follow in the footsteps of our northern brother from the same mother - Canada. Canada also faces the low birth rate dilemma and have countered by welcoming legal immigrants. (Noticed the clarification in front of the word "immigrants"). Legal immigration can counter this but it takes a few generations before children of legal immigrants feel loyalty to the country they live in.

If we are to increase our indigenous numbers, couples need to have more children, not less. They need to have them earlier in their careers, not later. And if "free medicare for all" is going to cause trillions of dollars in debt for our healthcare facilities leading to layoffs, then it will become vastly apparent the United States did not need "free medicare for all" to accomplish this. We can blame it on the dwindling Baby Boomer population and the Millennials for having children later in life. A counter would be to welcome legal immigration t those who wish to live the American life.

Millennials projected to overtake Baby Boomers as America’s largest generation

BY RICHARD FRY

FT_18.02.15_GenerationsBirths_projected.

Millennials are on the cusp of surpassing Baby Boomers as the nation’s largest living adult generation, according to population projections from the U.S. Census Bureau. As of July 1, 2016 (the latest date for which population estimates are available), Millennials, whom we define as ages 20 to 35 in 2016, numbered 71 million, and Boomers (ages 52 to 70) numbered 74 million. Millennials are expected to overtake Boomers in population in 2019 as their numbers swell to 73 million and Boomers decline to 72 million. Generation X (ages 36 to 51 in 2016) is projected to pass the Boomers in population by 2028.

FT_18.02.15_generationsDefined2016_revisThe Millennial generation continues to grow as young immigrants expand its ranks. Boomers – whose generation was defined by the boom in U.S. births following World War II – are aging and their numbers shrinking in size as the number of deaths among them exceeds the number of older immigrants arriving in the country.

Because generations are analytical constructs, it takes time for popular and expert consensus to develop as to the precise boundaries that demarcate one generation from another. Pew Research Center has assessed demographic, labor market, attitudinal and behavioral measures and has now established an endpoint – albeit inexact – for the Millennial generation. According to our revised definition, the youngest “Millennial” was born in 1996. This post has been updated accordingly (see note below).

With immigration adding more numbers to this group than any other, the Millennial population is projected to peak in 2036 at 76.2 million. Thereafter, the oldest Millennial will be at least 56 years of age and mortality is projected to outweigh net immigration. By 2050 there will be a projected 74.3 million Millennials. FT_18.02.15_GenerationsBirths.png Generation X

For a few more years, Gen Xers are projected to remain the “middle child” of generations – caught between two larger generations, the Millennials and the Boomers. Gen Xers were born during a period when Americans were having fewer children than in later decades. When Gen Xers were born, births averaged around 3.4 million per year, compared with the 3.9 million annual rate from 1981 to 1996 when the Millennials were born. Though the oldest Gen Xer was 51 in 2016, the Gen X population is projected to grow for a couple more years. Gen Xers are projected to outnumber Boomers in 2028, when there will be 64.6 million Gen Xers and 63.7 million Boomers. The Census Bureau projects that the Gen X population will peak at 65.8 million in 2018. Baby Boomers

Baby Boomers have always had an outsize presence compared with other generations. They peaked at 78.8 million in 1999 and have remained the largest living adult generation. There were an estimated 74.1 million Boomers in 2016. By midcentury, the Boomer population is projected to dwindle to 16.6 million. Note: This post was originally published on Jan. 16, 2015. It was updated April 25, 2016, under the headline “Millennials overtake Baby Boomers as America’s largest generation,” which reflected the Center’s definition of Millennials at the time (born between 1981 and 1997). This third version reflects the Center’s newly revised definition, under which Millennial births end in 1996.

Spend any time working in a hospital,doing any job, not just patient care and you’ll realize ‘’free health care’’ is a joke. The only people who get free health care are illegal aliens who use a hospital ER like a doctors office. These cockroaches have learned that they can’t be denied care. No money? No problema! No habla? No problema, they’re given a translator. And you and I are paying for it.

Medicare For All is great for all the washed up hippies that spent their lives bad mouthing the country while they ‘turned on and tuned out’, promoted drug use, free love, abortion, a professional student/educator lifestyle and a ‘if it feels good do it’ mentality while spending spending all their money on dope rather than growing up, investing and/or saving for their future and becoming self-sufficient.
I have ZERO compassion for those that expect the government to take care of them for free because they have been on a 50 year high.

Wow, most missed the point entirely. I am not for “free healthcare” or free that because I know that free usually means someone else pays. I agree with most comments in this thread. However, the point is that the United States is among many countries who are not capable of sustaining its indigenous population rate thus causing numerous issues, among them, is healthcare and more importantly, a maximum potential workforce to sustain an optimized tax income. I doubt any respondent here read the post in its entirety and instead just replied to the title. There is a fundamental underpinning as to why free anything is not possible even if the majority deemed they wanted it. It has everything to do with the indigenous population numbers and less to do with healthcare, Medicare, etc.

Reagan proved to increase the workforce numbers and you increase the incoming taxable income. Increase the tax rate and you reduce that number. If you decrease the workforce numbers due to the propagation of the natural workforce, you decrease the income and need to look elsewhere to fill in to make up the reduction in numbers. This leads to legal immigration among other things. Healthcare is the first symptom that will show the bleed effect of the decreasing population rate and is the reason why healthcare was used to point this out. A decreasing indigenous population rate is akin to sitting in a cold pot of water and waiting for it to boil. Eventually, it will boil and when it does it is too late to escape.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.