Know I’ll get flamed for this, but I find it intellectually dishonest when people say the cost of Medicare has to be restrained, but then oppose any measure to actually cut costs. There is really no way to cut cost without:
1. Increasing the enrollment age
2. Cutting benefits (e.g., prescription drugs)
3. Limiting the procedures covered
4. Cutting payments to providers
5. Eliminating fraud (for real)
If Medicare were eliminated tomorrow, people would have to rely on their own insurance or savings to fill the void. Likewise, if something is rationed, people would do the same. Not sure I see the problem with this.
If you disagree, then tell me how YOU would restrain Medicare costs.
I have no problem with cutting back on Medicare and allowing people to make their own arrangements for health care services.
A major problem with Medicare is that seniors are given no choice about it. Once they reach 65, they have to take Medicare. That just isn’t right.
You are of course 100 percent correct. I've been saying here for years that most of what pays for today's Medicare benefits are the taxes of younger working Americans, and they should be IN FAVOR OF MEDICARE RATIONING, providing that it's done openly and that patients have the option to pay for the rationed items with their own money.
I get tremendous flamage from the I Paid In And The Government Promised Me crowd of course.
Many of that crowd can be found as members of this "conservative" site, which causes me to despair that the public at large will ever accept the demographics facts about Medicare.
Until the program crashes and burns of course, at which time acceptance will be universal.
If there's one thing I've learned over the past couple of years, it's how bloated these government programs really are. Definitely, cutting waste, fraud and abuse is part of cost savings.
Also, I would structure healthcare into different classes of treatment. If you are a low or no-income person with no means of financial support and have not paid into the system, you would get basic treatment but noth much else. No fancy hospital stays, and when you do, it would be in a barracks-style building; I'd also consider an HMO-style setup where you'd need a referral before pursuing specialty care. Instead of hospital emergency rooms for weekend, non life-threatening aches and pains, I'd create redi-medi infirmaries with nurse practitioners.
I'd also employ some use of health savings' accounts, and I'd open state lines so individuals could obtain better rates for group insurance.
I would also look to the free market, and get government largely out of healthcare. I would definitely look to streamline malpractice lawsuits without cause.
Those are only a few ideas, but surely they're a start.
One thing I never understood is why people are forced onto it. My dad had a very good job, and thus had a very good retirement plan. My parents was on his company’s insurance as a retiree, but at 65 were forced on to medicare. They didn’t want it and could afford to stay on the private plan. Why not let people opt out and do their own thing if they can afford it? Wouldn’t that help get some of costs down? I sure as he!! don’t want to be on it.... (let alone FUBO-care)
Decreasing payments to providers will not help the problem. Medicare payments are so low, providers will continue to reject Medicare patients.
I read a few years ago the highest amount of money spent by Medicare is in the last year of life of the patient. We have to take a look at this. I recall recently that there is a new prostate cancer drug that costs aout $90,000. It extends life for terminal prostate cancer patients for 3 months. I cannot remember the name of the drug, but Medicare approved it for their formulary.
What is the average annual payout of Medicare per recepient?