Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whose estimates are these? You can't just take the cost of the 30 million oldest people and multiply it by 10 to get the cost of the entire population. Those on Medicare are the ones with the most illnesses, due to age and have the highest costs. A better way is to look at Canada, which is essentially Medicare for all. When you do, you will see that costs decrease. The U.S. private system is the costliest of all systems.
Here’s the raw facts too, from the National Health Expenditure data: since 1970 Medicare costs per beneficiary have risen at an annual rate of 8.8% — but insurance premiums have risen at an annual rate of 9.9%. The rise in Medicare costs is just part of the overall rise in health care spending. And in fact Medicare spending has lagged private spending: if insurance premiums had risen “only” as much as Medicare spending, they’d be 1/3 lower than they are.
Do you know that we of the Medicare group, all being 65 or older, find about $10 less in our Social Security checks these days to pay some toward Medicare? Why at my house I pay more per month than my wife or my sons do each month and I make much less than 1/3 as much as they do.
I just thought some more of the truth about Medicare and the old people who use it should be put out for all.
Whose estimates are these? You can't just take the cost of the 30 million oldest people and multiply it by 10 to get the cost of the entire population. Those on Medicare are the ones with the most illnesses, due to age and have the highest costs. A better way is to look at Canada, which is essentially Medicare for all. When you do, you will see that costs decrease. The U.S. private system is the costliest of all systems.
Here’s the raw facts too, from the National Health Expenditure data: since 1970 Medicare costs per beneficiary have risen at an annual rate of 8.8% — but insurance premiums have risen at an annual rate of 9.9%. The rise in Medicare costs is just part of the overall rise in health care spending. And in fact Medicare spending has lagged private spending: if insurance premiums had risen “only” as much as Medicare spending, they’d be 1/3 lower than they are.
uhm..I said mediCAID..not medicare
the FACT is that medicaid which pays NOT for old people but for able people,,... and unlike medicare which is an 80/20 program..medicaid covers 100% based on what the GOVERNMENT DECIDES the cost should be...and it still costs over 10k per person....
even under the frances system cost it would be 1-3 trillion PER YEAR to cover our population
the FACT is that medicaid which pays NOT for old people but for able people,,... and unlike medicare which is an 80/20 program..medicaid covers 100% based on what the GOVERNMENT DECIDES the cost should be...and it still costs over 10k per person....
even under the frances system cost it would be 1-3 trillion PER YEAR to cover our population
Your suggestion about defense is a real non-entity or will be one week from today. I guess you know that there was an agreement to cut the defense budget viciously if the super committee failed by November 23 and they have completely failed, up to now, and they don't care about defense. You do know about that, I hope.
Viciously is not what I'd call it.
We need to cut the department of defense in half, period. That would be vicious. They aren't even cutting 10%, not even 5%.
The problem with this is that non-critical procedures, if left untreated, can turn into worse and worse life-threatening problems. And it's often a lot cheaper to treat them earlier than to wait until they get further developed.
So while it might seem you're saving money by only covering the big operations, you might end up spending more money than if you covered preventative and early treatment.
Thats true, they say preventative care is cheaper.
But think of it this way. Medicare is very expensive, supplemental insurance isn't very expensive? Why? Because the government is fitting most of the bill.
The other cuts I mentioned, plus what we already spend on medicare and medicaid are more then enough to make up for that difference. Then the supplemental insurance will be cheaper. And we are talking about some painful ailements that wouldn't be covered publiclly. People who can afford it are going to get supplemental insurance.
Not to mention the fact that private employers would immediately be relieved of their highest personnel costs, so they can hire new employees and supply them with supplemental insurance.
you cut defense anymore than we already did in the 90's and we wont have a defense
The institute notes that the United States accounted for virtually all of the increase in world military spending in 2010.
And because the United States has the world’s largest economy, its share of world military spending is outsized, accounting for 43 percent of all the military spending on Earth — six times as much as China, which has the world’s second largest military budget and accounts for 7.3 percent of world military spending. Russia accounts for just 3.6 percent.
Read something, and before I get the words liberal, look who wrote this, and who he worked for.
Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.
Read the article, please. We can afford a 50% cut in military spending and still have more military, and more advanced then the rest of the world. Europe and our allies have constantly lowered their military spending since the end of the cold war. Why? Because we provide them with a military.
If you don't like foreign aid, and think it should be cut, the most foreign aid is military spending, and it should be cut first.
you cut defense anymore than we already did in the 90's and we wont have a defense
This could not be more incredibly wrong.
The United States spends 6-7 times more on its military than any other country on Earth. And most of the rest of the world's military spending is done by our allies!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
We can afford a 50% cut in military spending and still have more military, and more advanced then the rest of the world.
The institute notes that the United States accounted for virtually all of the increase in world military spending in 2010.
And because the United States has the world’s largest economy, its share of world military spending is outsized, accounting for 43 percent of all the military spending on Earth — six times as much as China, which has the world’s second largest military budget and accounts for 7.3 percent of world military spending. Russia accounts for just 3.6 percent.
[
.
our military spending is right in line with most other countries as a percent of gdp
the the defense spending is only about 4.5% of GDP
defense spending as a % of GDP puts us at #27
we spend LESS now than we have in the last 30 years (adjusted for inflation)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
