[sickoflibs]

RE :”Lawmakers created the IPAB in the Affordable Care Act to help solve Medicare's significant financial problems. The average couple will pay $140,000 into Medicare during their working years, but will get nearly three times that amount back in health care services through Medicare. This pattern has led the program to a $79.4 trillion “unfunded liability” or budget hole, and that figure grows each year.”

That is interesting. If you invested that $140 K across your work span you would hope to get more than that back after 30+ years of working. Entitlements are a ponzi where you might have 1+1/2 worker paying for that $140K where as before it was 3 workers paying $140K each or a total of times 3.

Cutting medicare is definitely the live rail of politics as Democrats learned last year.

[Semperfiwife]

And an entire generation of those third persons has been aborted by the very generation that needs them now the most.

[DrC]

“If you invested that $140 K across your work span you would hope to get more than that back after 30+ years of working. “

The figures are in present dollar terms, taking into account past inflation and discounting future benefits at 2% a year.
http://www.urban.org/publications/412281.html. It’s a conservative estimate of the mismatch between contributions and payouts since it only includes those who survive to age 65 and ignores all those who died prior to that year, i.e., contributing taxes but receiving no benefits.

In contrast, Social Security is much less of a “deal” with at least some non-negligible fraction of recipients paying in more than they get etc.

There’s little question we need to adjust the age for Medicare eligibility if we ever wish to make this program financially viable over the long haul. Moreover, there isn’t any particularly good reason for Uncle Sam to bankroll Warren Buffett’s health care in retirement etc. Means-testing Medicare would make much more sense.