The problem is that with an aging population, almost everyone winds up in the "sickest of the sick" category over time. We will eventually wind up with millions of people who are 93 years old, suffering from several degenerative diseases, and sure candidates for that six-week, multimillion dollar stay in the ICU before they die (because denying one minute off that stay would be running a "death panel", natch).
Under the current Medicare model, those nonagerians have long since burned through what they and their employers put into the program. They are staying alive on the dollars paid in by younger workers, and that's the part which unfortunately can't be replicated on a voucher system.
My prediction of Medicare in say 2035 or so is that there will be walk in clinics for diseases that can be treated with drugs or minor procedures, and hospice care for the dying, with nothing much in between. Major hospital procedures will be for those who can afford to write a check.
And by the way, this is why "preventative care" is a disastrous idea for a country in which everyone eventually is covered by Medicare. The 63 year old taxpayer who suddenly drops dead of an unexpected heart attack or stroke is a huge financial plus to the system. Cure that disease at 62 and he'll be riding in the wagon pulled by his kids and grandkids and great grandkids for another thirty years.....
You got some pluses and minuses going here in your comment.
First, the minus. I’m not sure that so-called “preventative” medicine helps or prevents much of anything. It sounds good on paper but I’m thinking it’s probably mostly just away for the medicos to get more revenue.
I have no statistics but I’d sure bet they’re don’t prevent much more diseases with these preventative measures that’s it’s worth all the millions poured into this program. But hey, if YOU’RE the one that has a colon polyp discovered before it turns cancerous, you’re a happy guy. Never mind that billions were wasted looking for young polyps to find some in maybe a fraction of a percent of those tested.
That being said, I’m not sure that any talking point espousing eliminating preventative care that the 63 year old might die younger than the 90 he’ll live to with this preventative care is such a good talking point. But again, I’ll allow it’s a good point when coupled with the reality that preventative care costs waaaaaaaay more to justify the few it really saves. Add to it that the few saved only end up costing the system way more money in the long run, that not-so-nice talking point of yours, and you’re probably right.
I also agree with your point that the longer people live the more likely they are to spend a long million dollar stay in an ICU before they die. That’s a sad fact and a real problem, I know this.
The BIGGER problem, with all your unpleasant truths, THE LAST PEOPLE ON THE PLANET WE WANT MAKING THESE DECISIONS IS A GUBMINT BUREAUCRAT!!!
This is why the concept of “Death Panels” is so awful.
Despite the gubmint’s intention to intrude, people do die every day out here in la-la land and I’m thinking all of yon readers on this thread probably have had to deal with life or death of a loved one at some point in our lives.
More often than we give ourselves credit for, I’m thinking death comes by arranging a comfortable place to stay as it nears, free from pain, WITHOUT absurd measures to try and keep the inevitable end at bay. Again, I don’t have the statistics but we do have this thing called common sense that the elite do not have.
A scenario where you get a 93 year old in a 6 week ICU is kind of rare, I suspect. But it happens and yeah, the longer people’s life spans the more likely this is to happen.
Hey, it’s not like us boobs are not as smart as all the gubmint and mighty Obama don’t understand this stuff. We sure do. But we don’t want the gubmint deciding, even if by damning rules and regulations, and given the chance, I daresay we’ll make the right choice.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.