Posted on 05/09/2007 5:01:08 AM PDT by Brilliant
What's going to happen when the money runs out for Medicare? A recently released report by the program's trustees found that within seven years Medicare taxes will fall short of Medicare expenses by more than 45%. What's more, Medicare and Social Security combined are on track to eat up the entire federal budget...
The projected cash flow deficits in these two programs are staggering. For Social Security, the trustees estimate the 75-year burden on general revenues at $6.7 trillion. For Medicare the comparable burden on general revenues is $24.2 trillion... Thus the total burden these programs will impose on federal finances over the next 75 years is $31.9 trillion...
Members of Congress will not have to wait long to experience the practical effects of all of this. Until a few years ago, Social Security and Medicare were taking in more than they spent... Thus they provided revenue for other federal programs. That situation is now reversed, and last year the combined deficits in the two programs claimed 5.3% of federal income tax revenues. In 15 years these two programs will require more than a fourth of income tax revenues...
Could we force the elderly to pay for future deficits with higher Medicare premiums? Monthly premiums in constant dollars would more than quadruple by 2020, and be almost 30 times their current level by 2080...
Using taxation to fund the projected Medicare shortfalls is equally unpalatable. We would need a 10% increase in all nonpayroll taxes by 2020 and a 50% increase by 2080...
So what else can be done? ...On the demand side, someone must choose between health care and other uses of money... On the supply side, the way health care is produced must fundamentally be changed, replacing cost-increasing innovations with cost-reducing ones...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The solution this guy offers is nothing but mumbo jumbo. Government is not going to increase supply thru central management of the healthcare system, and manipulating demand is nothing more than telling people that despite what they think, they really don't need healthcare. That's not a "solution" either.
If they really want to fix this problem, what they've got to do is increase the number of doctors and other healthcare technicians at a more rapid rate. The growth in the number of doctors and technicians is not keeping up with the demand, even at the suppressed levels of demand we've got.
The truth, though, is that both social security and medicare are headed for the ash heap of history. It's too late to fix them.
Of course, if Clinton had not vetoed Gingrich's medicare reform package 12 years ago, there would be no problem at all with medicare today. If Clinton had adopted his own blue ribbon commission's recommendation to privatize social security 10 years ago, there would be no problem with social security.
This is what the future of the social welfare state looks like. And so what is the response of most of the so-called leaders in Washington? Expand the social welfare state with amnesty for illegals. The future of social security and medicare is very tenuous. But these programs have no future when you legalize millions of illegals and open the door for chain migration.
The supply side of health care is an obvious problem as trade organizations and educational institutions do conspire to restrict entry into the trades. The other side of the coin though is do you really want someone just barely qualified to take your order at McDonald’s to start your IV ?
Of course it is Bush’s fault for not persuing a more liberal immigration policy that would bring in more guest workers that would pay taxes and eliminate the revenue shortfalls. s/off
SS and MCR should be offered to seniors only age 70+ that have a combined income under $45k.
Problem solved.
I think there are plenty of people who want to go into these professions and who would be qualified, but who are weeded out by a system that is not really designed to produce enough doctors and technicians to meet demand. Our politicians are fixated on manipulating demand so that the inadequate supply will appear to be enough, even though it is not.
How?
That would not solve the medicare problem. The overwhelming number of workers who have healthcare coverage now will suddenly find themselves without healthcare insurance upon retirement. This whole generation has come to rely upon medicare for health insurance in the retirement years, irrespective of income status.
Of course, most retirees don’t have an income of $45,000 per year, either, so I’m not sure how many beneficiaries would be weeded out by your proposal anyway.
Increase the capacity of the medical schools to produce doctors, and then let them do so. Currently, the medical schools have a kind of cartel that restricts the number of people who can become doctors. That is really the nexus of the problem.
Medicare = Only offer catastrophic, emergency, & long-term care to existing seniors 55 and older, in which the program will gradually phase itself out - all other care should be purchased through private insurance.
Medicaid = Abolish the program - if low-income people can afford take-out meals, cable television, beer and cigarettes, then they can afford to buy their own healthcare policy.
The two programs would instantly become "welfare" in the classic definition of the term. Many millions of taxpayers who funded the programs all their working lives would have been robbed of the money put into them.
Myself, I shall file for SS and MCR the instant I become elligible, regardless of how much money I'm making otherwise. I've been paying in to them for almost 40 years, after all.
What we need is creative financing that will put the cost burden on those consuming the resources. Therefore, I propose that we install banks of slot machines in all doctor's offices where Medicare insurance is accepted. Granny seems to have enough cash to take weekly bus trips to the nearest Indian casino, why not use some of that to pay for her medical care?
I could buy into all of that. But it ain’t gonna happen. Ever.
All of this is going to end in armed revolution.
There are really only two options. To become fully trained in a medical specialty requires about eight years of more than full time effort (way more) after college. In this country, a potential doctor, goes way into debt and defers income for that period of time in order to train. The rewards are potentially great, but it is a hard road and often a hard life. Not many make it through.
In Europe they have plenty of doctors. There, the government pays the tuition and gives the student a nice salary all the way through their training. When they get out they continue to make respectable money as government employees and they have limited work hours. That is an amazingly costly government program. They offset it by rationing health care.
Apparently, Dems argue that the society would not support a need based system, so they require everyone to participate and pay benefits to billionaires. I agree we need to build more medical schools and increase the supply of American docs.
You are just a wee bit off - seniors reaching 65 have no choices BUT medicare. The health insurers were long ago forced out of the 65+ market by our federal government and allowed only into the medicare supplemental market.
When my father reached 65 about 10 years ago, even tho he was still in excellent health and still working full time at the height of his career, he was forced to give up his Blue Cross pay-100%-of-everything gold plated health plan and go on the government medicare dole.
He was not given a choice by our illustrious government. They want everyone to be beholden to politicians.
If the Europeans have plenty of doctors, then why do they have to ration healthcare?
My view is that government should not be in the business of paying for medical school. There is plenty enough money in that profession to justify going into the field without a government subsidy. The problem is not money. The problem is that the medical schools, teaching hospitals, and AMA are in charge of deciding how many people can go to medical school. And their decision in that regard is not really based on the quality of the applicants so much as it is based on their own self-interested judgment of how many new doctors we need. As you can see, they have a poor track record in making that assessment.
Problem solved.
I sense your post was written with tongue-half-in-cheek, but in reality, this is how it _will_ be done, when the issues are finally addressed.
By then, it will be too late for ANYthing else to work. There will be no other choices.
The "fix" for Social Security will eventually be means-testing (along with reduced benefits and higher taxes).
Similarly, the fix for Medicare will be means-testing and care-rationing, the latter patterned after the "Oregon System" of triage.
- John
I disagree. Under our system, if there were more doctors, the financial rewards of being a doctor would be substantially less because of supply and demand. I can tell you, I would not have gone $250,000 in debt, worked 70 hours per week, and postponed my life for eight years if the potential did not exist to turn that around.
There are some workers who have healthcare benefits that continue after retirement. A good example is the auto workers. But the overwhelming majority of us do not, and as you say, will be totally dependent on medicare for health insurance in our retirement years.
When George Bush was elected and tried to reform Social Security ,the Democrats told us there was nothing wrong with it. It was fine. Dont you trust the Democrats?
If the democrats win in 2008 they will save Medicare,by taxing the beejeebers out of you.
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.