Do you think SS/Medicare will have serious cuts in your lifetime? (community, drugs)

[Robyn55]

Originally Posted by xz2y

Thank you. There is no reason that the US gov't cannot negotiate lower drug costs with big pharma other than the fact that the congress (both parties ) has been bought off by big pharma by lobbyists. Why should US citizens pay for all the R&D? These companies are international, and not just US companies any longer. It's corruption in the gov't that is costing seniors and everyone else who purchases drugs an excessive amount of money for medications.

I don't know the exact cost that Part D policies should charge, but the entire system of having multiple Part D plans, that vary even more by state, that constantly change what they cover and don't cover from year to year, confusing seniors in the name of profits, and then charge huge amounts for top tier drugs that are available in europe and canada for much cheaper costs, is patently unfair to Americans, and price gouging in its worst form. A good start toward a comprehensive, affordable Medicare drug plan is for the government to negotiate lower drug costs for Medicare recipients (the VA can do this, why can't Medicare), on all drugs, and to force insurers to stop the nonsense of constantly changing what these plans cover and don't cover every year.

As I mentioned only a day or so ago - there are many expensive drugs that are almost equally expensive here and abroad (like Gilenya - $48k here - $40k in Europe). As I have also mentioned - I tend to follow MS drugs because my husband has MS. But since 5 or 6 of the top 10 most expensive non-orphan drugs in the US are MS drugs - they should matter to everyone who buys insurance.

And I will turn your question on its head. Why *shouldn't* there be different plans with different drug formularies? If you don't have MS - wouldn't a plan that doesn't cover the most expensive MS drugs save money for you? If you're a woman - a plan that doesn't cover an expensive prostate cancer drug might save you money. OTOH - if there were a "one size fits all" plan - it might well exclude all of these expensive drugs - and deprive us of the ability to chose a plan that we think has the best chance of working best for us.

Note that I don't have problems with plans changing every year. There are always new drugs. Drugs that "go generic" in any given year. And drugs that lose all their generics as well (colchicine being an example of the last).

Also note that some drugs are covered under Part D Medicare - others under Part B.

I really dislike these generalized complaints. And have previously asked for specific complaints about specific drugs. Haven't heard any yet. Just generalized moaning and groaning.

FWIW - I think most "junior seniors" (<80) are fully capable of looking into these things. And if any senior doesnt want to DIY - there are insurance agents who can sort things out for them (price to the consumer will be the same whether or not you use an agent). My husband and I do some basic research ourselves - but use an agent as well. Robyn

[Robyn55]

Originally Posted by Mircea

...One of the main reasons is no competition in health care.

I have a choice of going to Saint Luke East owned by the Sisters of Mercy, or Saint Luke West owned by the Sisters of Mercy, or Bethesda North owned by the Sisters of Mercy, or Mercy Hospital West owned by the Sisters of Mercy or Mercy Hospital East owned by the Sisters of Mercy, or Clermont Mercy owned by the Sisters of Mercy.

That's like having a choice of McDonald's, McDonald's, McDonald's, McDonald's or McDonald's.

What kind of choice is that? How is that "Free Market Competition?"

That's monopolistic...

You say you live in Ohio. Judging from this - my guess (after a 15 second Google ssearch) is you live in Cincinnati. About which I know zero. Your metro area is about twice as big as mine in terms of population (JAX FL metro area). But we have a lot of choices when it comes to hospitals. Everything from the Mayo Clinic to University of Florida Shands/Jacksonville to the St. Vincent's network - to the Baptist Health Network - to hospitals owned by private corporations like Memorial Hospital (HCA). Reckon there are more - but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.

I wonder why we have so many choices - and you have so few? Perhaps there are differences in terms of state regulatory structures? Or no one wants to run a hospital in Cincinnati? Or perhaps you are only talking about hospitals that are "in network" for you? Don't have a clue. All I know is all of the hospitals in JAX that I mentioned are in my PPO network - and they all accept regular Medicare patients as well...

Acid reflux same thing. No one will die from acid reflux. Their choice is change their diet, deal with it, use herbal/home remedies, over-the-counter drugs or pay 100% out of pocket...

Every time you discuss something medical - well I think you show no evidence of any background - knowledge - or expertise in medicine at all. IANAD - but know more about medicine than you do (a couple of decades of doing medical/legal work will do that). And acid reflux as you call it - known as GERD medically - can be pretty serious:

Acid Reflux Complications - Symptoms & Erosive Esophagitis

Anyway - if I were you - I would stick to my knitting and refrain from discussing medical stuff. It certainly isn't your strong suit.

My sister had a choice of 3 pharmaceutical companies. One stopped manufacturing the drug, one merged with another company and stopped manufacturing it, and the Swiss company that made it introduced a new version under patent and did away with the other.

She was paying $800/month for one drug.

If she does not take that drug, then she'll go into a coma within 72 hours and be dead a few days later. So, yes, she carries extra all the time. She wrote to the company and told them about her personal and financial situation. A few months later a company rep showed up at her home, and they talked for a few hours. A few weeks after that, she got a letter saying they had reduced her cost to just $80/month.

What is the drug that your sister takes? Note that many companies that sell expensive drugs have patient assistance programs (I was able to get my housekeeper's Plavix Rx cost reduced by 90%) - and they are not only for patients of very limited means (you can qualify for patient assistance with a drug like Colcrys if your family income is up to $150k a year).

I do not believe that is accurate.

Obamacare imposes a 3.8% tax on income from home sales and home/apartment rental income and also on investment income of individuals earning $200,000 and married persons earning $250,000 or more starting in 2013.

An older article from 2010 claims that this tax is not indexed for inflation resulting in more and more people getting caught in the net.

All I said was the argument that you can't tax this stuff at all is over. Like when Social Security was first taxed. All we're talking about now is the numbers. Robyn

[NHartphotog]

Originally Posted by cdelena

I expect some move towards means testing which may or may not affect many of us.

Yes. And the most responsible will LOSE their contributions.

If you've been responsible, like my family, and saved for retirement instead of blowing the money on vacations and luxuries, you will be deemed "rich and secure" and your contributions will be forfeited to all those "needy"--read, irresponsible and short-sighted.

Great system. I wish I'd never entered this corrupt game that made the productive people nothing but sacrificial lambs to feed the non-productive and irresponsible masses.

If you're young, learn from my mistake: don't participate in the "above ground" economy--no matter how hard you work, you'll end up with nothing.

[Escort Rider]

Originally Posted by NHartphotog

Yes. And the most responsible will LOSE their contributions. If you've been responsible, like my family, and saved for retirement instead of blowing the money on vacations and luxuries, you will be deemed "rich and secure" and your contributions will be forfeited to all those "needy"--read, irresponsible and short-sighted.

Great system. I wish I'd never entered this corrupt game that made the productive people nothing but sacrificial lambs to feed the non-productive and irresponsible masses.

If you're young, learn from my mistake: don't participate in the "above ground" economy--no matter how hard you work, you'll end up with nothing.

Here we go again. First, means testing of Social Security benefits is just an idea. It would have to pass Congress and be signed into law by whoever the President is at the time. I honestly don't know what the chances are of that ever happening, but apparently in your mind it's a dead certainty, as you have posted over and over again. If there were a prize for the most pessimistic person vis à vis Social Security, you would have no competition.

Second, I am somewhat torn about how to respond to your post, because I agree that we have a problem in this country with non-productive and irresponsible people. However, your wild hyperbole makes a mockery of that position. What depths of despair could possibly produce the final clause in your post (the one I placed in bold above)? It is so ridiculous that I am a bit embarrassed to rebut it. Can it be you don't know that there are millions upon millions of people participating in the "above ground" economy who manage to save and invest more than a negligible part of their earnings while still living a decent life? Do you not know that millions of people have a paid-off house (and I am not talking about movie stars or professional athletes)?

There must be some key to what's behind your utterly pessimistic posts which all sound more or less the same. Care to share that key with us? Would it have something to do with buying a house at the height of the real estate bubble for your parents to live in and then seeing its value plummet? And then would it also have something to do with your having made erroneous assumptions about the tax status of expenses on that house if you turned it into a rental? Gee whiz, could it be related to errors in judgement on your part? Or is it that our system is rotten to the core?

[Robyn55]

Originally Posted by NHartphotog

Yes. And the most responsible will LOSE their contributions.

If you've been responsible, like my family, and saved for retirement instead of blowing the money on vacations and luxuries, you will be deemed "rich and secure" and your contributions will be forfeited to all those "needy"--read, irresponsible and short-sighted.

Great system. I wish I'd never entered this corrupt game that made the productive people nothing but sacrificial lambs to feed the non-productive and irresponsible masses.

If you're young, learn from my mistake: don't participate in the "above ground" economy--no matter how hard you work, you'll end up with nothing.

Amen. Robyn

[texdav]

What you independantly save and accumlated isn't going to disppear when entitlements are cut. The reason for the cuts is people get much more than what they invested in entitlement programs.That saving will payoff more than ever in comig years once we start to pay for the spending of late.You would have to be very rich to lose much indepentant accumulated wealth even by worse proposals.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by NHartphotog

Yes. And the most responsible will LOSE their contributions.

What "contributions?" You are sadly mistaken.

Social Security is not a retirement plan.

Social Security is an insurance plan. It's just like homeowner's insurance. You pay premiums every month. If nothing happens, that money is gone and you never get it back. If a tornado damages the roof, then the insurance company pays for the damage to the roof; it doesn't buy you a new house.

The insurance company only buys you a new home if the entire house is destroyed (and if then only if your insurance plan specifically says that and not merely mortgage pay-off).

If you means-test in Social Security, it should work about the same way. If you need 100% of the benefits you're calculated to receive then you should get them, and if not, then you should only get a percentage, or nothing at all if happens to be that you're so lucky.

Originally Posted by NHartphotog

If you've been responsible....

...and lucky.

You left out that part.

The game isn't over for you yet. Your luck could run out at any time.

Responsibly...

Mircea

Originally Posted by Robyn55

You say you live in Ohio. Judging from this - my guess (after a 15 second Google ssearch) is you live in Cincinnati. About which I know zero. Your metro area is about twice as big as mine in terms of population (JAX FL metro area). But we have a lot of choices when it comes to hospitals. Everything from the Mayo Clinic to University of Florida Shands/Jacksonville to the St. Vincent's network - to the Baptist Health Network - to hospitals owned by private corporations like Memorial Hospital (HCA). Reckon there are more - but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.

But who owns them?

And how are they organized?

Sure, I could go to Good Samaritan, owned by the Sisters of Charity, or St George owned by the Sisters of Charity or St Francis owned by the Sisters of Charity or Provident Hospital owned by the Sisters of Charity.

So I have a choice of McDonald's, McDonald's, McDonald's, McDonald's, McDonald's or KFC, KFC, KFC and KFC.

Nice choice.

It so happens that they are organized as OPEC/Medellin-drug Cartels.

Sure, I can go to Jewish Hospital, which is part of the same OPEC/Medellin Colombian-drug Cartel as all of the Sisters of Mercy hospitals are.

Now I have a choice of McDonald's, McDonald's, McDonald's, McDonald's, McDonald's or Chipotle (owned by McDonald's).

What kind of free market competition is that?

Yes, and I could also go to University Hospital which happens to be in the same OPEC/Medellin Colombian-drug Cartel as all of the Sisters of Charity hospitals.

So now I have a choice of KFC, KFC, KFC, KFC or Pizza Hut (all owned by the same corporation).

Again, where's the free market competition? There isn't any.

As an employee, you have no choice. Your employer provides you with your health care. So you are stuck in the Sisters of Mercy OPEC/Medellin Colombian-drug Cartel. Then your employer switches plans and now you're in the Sisters of Charity OPEC/Medellin Colombian-drug Cartel.

That's great, expect all of your doctors are in the Sisters of Mercy Cartel and if you want to use them, then you are "Out-of-Network" and that means your employer sponsored health plan will pay either nothing at all or only a maximum of 20% -- you get stuck paying 80% of all bills as punishment for using the wrong Robber Baron Hospital Cartel.

Okay, so maybe you have more hospitals, but again, who really owns them, and how are they organized? Check your health plan paperwork. You either have a booklet or an on-line document that lists all of the health care providers that your plan covers. Any doctors or medical facilities that are not listed are "Out-of-Network" and part of another Robber Baron Hospital Cartel.

That is one of several reasons why your health care system is broke and outrageously expensive.

As sure as I'm sitting here, I swear to you on the graves of my grandchildren that if you got a national single payer plan, you would still have to deal with the Robber Baron Hospital Cartels that illegally collude to illegally fix prices. And that would be a nightmare far worse than what you have now.

Is there such a thing as "Out-of-Network" roofers in homeowner insurance plans?

No. You are free to use any legitimate repair business to repair damage to your home without penalty of any kind.

Are there "Out-of Network" collision repair shops for your car insurance?

No. You are free to use any legitimate body shop or collision shop to repair damage to your car without any penalty whatsoever.

Then why are their penalties for "health insurance?" That's because "health insurance" is not true, real, bona fide insurance. It's faux insurance. I hope for your sakes you all figure that out one day.

Originally Posted by Robyn55

I wonder why we have so many choices - and you have so few? Perhaps there are differences in terms of state regulatory structures?

I would venture to guess you don't have as many choices as you think. Just because hospitals have different names, doesn't mean they are independently owned. And again, check your insurance paperwork. If you have to pay "Out-of-Network" expenses or fees, then you have Cartels operating in your area.

Originally Posted by Robyn55

Or perhaps you are only talking about hospitals that are "in network" for you?

Fortunately I use the VA hospital so I don't have to deal with it.

Originally Posted by Robyn55

All I know is all of the hospitals in JAX that I mentioned are in my PPO network - and they all accept regular Medicare patients as well...

Then you should consider yourself very lucky.

Still, if you want a single payer health plan like Europe, you will have to close most of your hospitals because you have way too many. As best as I can tell, you have a population of 1.3 Million in Jacksonville. If you want an health care system like Europe, then you can only have one hospital. If you have more than one hospital, then such a system would not be like Europe, and the result would be that the system ultimately fails. One of the reasons Europeans can have a single payer health care plan is precisely because a city like Bucharesti, Romania population 3 Million has only 3 hospitals; Berlin, Germany population 3 Million has only 3 hospitals and so on. Paris, France population 3 Million is the exception with 6 hospitals, but then one is run by a religious order, and two are very small, in fact most Americans would be reluctant to even call them "hospitals" because they have 25 beds or less.

I mention that only because there is a lot of propaganda and disinformation floating around. People are under the mistaken impression that they can have a single payer health plan like Europe. Well, they can, so long as they make the changes necessary so that it is like Europe, and among those changes necessary would be the closing of at least 60% of the hospitals in the US so that it is like Europe. If you refuse to close 60% of your hospitals, then your single payer system will not be like Europe and because it is not like Europe, it will fail miserably.

How can Europeans have a decent health care system without hospitals?

Simple: they rely heavily on specialty clinics. How ironic is it that Section 6001 of the Affordable Health Care Act which was written by one of Obama's biggest campaign donors, the American Hospital Association (AHA) specifically bars specialty clinics?

You might want to ask yourself why that is, and who benefits from that (Hint: you do not benefit -- you are harmed financially).

Originally Posted by Robyn55

Every time you discuss something medical - well I think you show no evidence of any background - knowledge - or expertise in medicine at all. IANAD - but know more about medicine than you do (a couple of decades of doing medical/legal work will do that). And acid reflux as you call it - known as GERD medically - can be pretty serious. Anyway - if I were you - I would stick to my knitting and refrain from discussing medical stuff. It certainly isn't your strong suit.

I am not a doctor and do not profess to be knowledge in things medicine. I'm not even good at patching up wound on the battlefield.

I mentioned that only as a generalized example. I do understand that there are a very tiny small number of people whose hay fever allergies are so severe than they can go into shock and die or suffer other serious complications.

I think we can pony up some money to help with their prescription medication. For everyone else, I'm real sorry about their luck.

Like it or not, you're going to have to start rationing health care via Medicare (and Medicaid) and even in a national single payer plan, you'd still have to ration health care.

You don't have the money.

People have this absurd notion that taxing the "rich" will solve all the problems. It will not. Tax the "rich" if you want; tax them at 99% if you want; but you still don't have the money, and you never will.

You need to decide which is more important: spending $71 Billion annually on a Department of Education which is not necessary, or means-testing Social Security and rationing Medicare. Those are the kinds of choices you will need to make over the course of the next few years.

Taxing the "rich" just won't get it. You'll have to tax the "rich" and means-test for Social Security and eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes and raise the FICA tax rate to at least 16% and cut government spending to save Social Security.

Likewise for Medicare you will have to tax the "rich" and means-test/ration Medicare and eliminate the cap and raise the rate to at least 3.7% and cut government spending if you want to save it.

Originally Posted by Robyn55

What is the drug that your sister takes? Note that many companies that sell expensive drugs have patient assistance programs.

I don't know. It was subcutaneous injections (2x daily). By the time she was in high school it was down to 1x daily. By the time she had 25 years, she was breaking needles because of the scar tissue. There was an inhalant that came on the market that worked fairly well, but as they often do, they wreck havoc with sinuses and cartilage so that was pulled later, and now it's two separate pills. There's only like 1 in 6 Million that have this condition.

She had to move to Montana quite a few years back. at that time the nasal inhalant was costing more than $600/month. She's very limited work wise but she got job at just over minimum wage, and she was paying $200/month for a 3-bedroom double-wide trailer with water and electric included so that helped, and then she got Food Stamp assistance. She lucked out because her doctor in Bozeman happened to be an intern under the doctor who discovered her condition and came up with a treatment for it. Normally, she has to educate doctors about her condition because so few know anything about it and trying to educate a doctor who knows everything is like talking to a brick wall. Now she lives in upstate New York near the Finger Lakes in a house built by Habitat for Humanity. That was 2003. It wasn't until about 2007 or 2008 when they finally gave her a discount on the drugs.

Originally Posted by Robyn55

All I said was the argument that you can't tax this stuff at all is over. Like when Social Security was first taxed. All we're talking about now is the numbers. Robyn

I think maybe the source of your info got confused on the taxes.

Medicare recommended an immediate 3.7% (actually 3.69%) increase or 17% cut in spending. Congress did neither. That 3.7% is total meaning 1.85% by employer and 1.85% by employee.

Obamacare called for a 2.9% tax on medical devices starting 2012 and a 3.8% tax on unearned income starting at $200,000 for single, $250,000 for married starting 2013.

As far as I know, Congress has not increased the Medicare tax, and not only has refused to make the 17% cut, but also has delayed cuts for this year as well. That will cause further harm to the HI Trust fund, resulting in total loss by 2018 (possibly as early as 2016).

Once the HI Trust Fund is gone, it will require money from the General Fund to keep Medicare going, which means your National Debt will increase that much faster, and worse than that, as the public portion of the National Debt approaches your GDP it will result in an economic nightmare.

They need to step up their game.

Sensibly...

Mircea

[Robyn55]

Originally Posted by Escort Rider

...If there were a prize for the most pessimistic person vis à vis Social Security, you would have no competition...

I think it would be a very competitive contest. Mircea isn't exactly a cockeyed optimist .

Although I lean to the pessimistic side - particularly in the longer run for younger people - I am more interested in anticipating possible changes and planning for them to the maximum extent possible. E.g., I read a lot of the tax proposals floating around these days (boring but necessary) - since the "Bush tax cuts" will expire at the end of this year (and their expiration and/or possible changes in terms of what will replace them) might affect a whole lot of people - many of whom certainly aren't wealthy or anywhere near wealthy.

Although I am doing with from the POV of a person with a fair amount of money - there are things people of lesser or almost no means should explore (either for themselves or their elderly parents). I have frequently pointed to this website as a good place for them to start:

https://ssl1.benefitscheckup.org/

That is one reason I ask a lot about specifics. We can't solve the world's problems here - but we can help someone try to find a way to get prescription meds they need. FWIW - even I get pharma company assistance on one drug I take. Through a discount coupon good for 12 months regardless of one's income. By the time my 12 months expire - I will be on Medicare (discount coupon doesn't apply once you go on Medicare). Robyn

[texdav]

But this thread is about SS and medicare which already is going broke o same polcies that have been in place for deacdfes;not taxes. No doubt when you have a deficit as we do there will be either cuts in general busget ;taxes riased or combination of both. Ony medicare effets the general budget. SS is separate funded and will undoubtly face cutting and or tax increases. SS and medicare have been committeed to death. This will be the thrid warning of a president by the trustees coming as required by law;the Breaux commison adrress the last.Nothign was done and it was kicked down the road as before to what the tustees said is a reduction coming under the same law that governs SS.QWe have already seen 500 billion taken from medicare and the resulkts are coming just as when our deficit will only hurt once we start to pay for it.

[Robyn55]

Originally Posted by Mircea

What "contributions?" You are sadly mistaken.

FICA = Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Apart from the name - the programs have always led people to believe that they are contributing *their* present contributions for *their* future benefits.

...If you means-test in Social Security, it should work about the same way. If you need 100% of the benefits you're calculated to receive then you should get them, and if not, then you should only get a percentage, or nothing at all if happens to be that you're so lucky.

You are as bad at insurance law as you are at medical stuff - but that is not relevant here. If our politicians tell taxpayers what you say - support for SS will disappear overnight. Especially among younger responsible taxpayers - given how much they will pay into the SS system over the course of their lives (a ton of money). This is a case where - if the system is simply "insurance" - unless you're a profligate deadbeat - you'd be better off putting the money in an IRA (or even under the mattress) until you retired.

Because the price of what you say is insurance is ridiculous for many/most people who are currently paying into the system.

To give you an idea - my husband and I both paid into SS from about the 60's (when we had part time jobs in college) until 1985 - when we retired. When we first started to collect SS - I did a rate of return computation on what we were getting. Thought it would be ridiculously high. But it was actually only 7% compounded annually. Our contributions would have been a lot higher - and our rate of return a lot lower (or even negative) if we had had income subject to FICA until we reached SS age (about 2-4 years ago).

Medicare is another issue altogether. Perhaps there are 10 people in the US who have paid enough into Medicare for the benefits we get from Medicare. But my husband and I are not 2 of those 10 people. I don't have any problem at all making Medicare payments contingent on income - at least for all of us who are now at or near Medicare age and never paid much into the system. Perhaps 20-40 years down the road - people will think differently - because they will have paid a lot more money into Medicare.

As an employee, you have no choice. Your employer provides you with your health care. So you are stuck in the Sisters of Mercy OPEC/Medellin Colombian-drug Cartel. Then your employer switches plans and now you're in the Sisters of Charity OPEC/Medellin Colombian-drug Cartel...

Of course people have a choice - assuming they're not poor or lower middle class. They can actually choose their own doctors and pay for their visits. Now maybe you can't afford to pay for bypass surgery out of pocket. But many people can afford to pay for a PCP visit - or even a specialist visit.

I am upper middle class - and live in an upper middle class (and higher) area. Yet I know people who live in million dollar+ houses who work for big corporations with the kinds of health care plans you describe who will put their kid on a 6 month waiting list to see a pediatric cardiology specialist in network - as opposed to spending $500 to get an appointment next week. While the kid has a $600+//year iPhone contract.

Somehow - a lot of people in this country got the idea that health care should be cheap or free - so they can spend their money on big houses - expensive cars - or toys. I have a $10k deductible plus max $3k co-pay (and my husband had that too until he went on Medicare). We have traveled to Mayo Rochester on our own nickel when my husband had a potentially serious health problem. I realize not everyone can afford to do this. OTOH - too many people who could pay something for their health care (especially if they saved some money for it) think it should be "free".

Is there such a thing as "Out-of-Network" roofers in homeowner insurance plans?

Are there "Out-of Network" collision repair shops for your car insurance?

Actually - yes and yes. After we had all the hurricanes in Florida in the mid-2000's - most areas that were hard hit wouldn't allow contractors who weren't licensed in their counties to do any work - they set up a lot of roadblocks to benefit local construction workers. Some people waited for years to get their roofs repaired.

And ditto with repair shops. My auto insurance carrier - State Farm - has repair places where anything that's done is approved automatically. Otherwise - you have to jump through a lot of hoops and red tape.

Fortunately I use the VA hospital so I don't have to deal with it.

Are you retired military or an injured war vet? If so - our country owes you the care you get there. If not - why should we as taxpayers subsidize you there? FWIW - my father (he served in WWII) - who is far from poor - but cheap - used to go to the VA place here to try to save a few bucks. But I eventually talked him out of it and got him into the Mayo system. The VA facility here is kind of in a crummy part of town - and I didn't want him driving there.

Still, if you want a single payer health plan like Europe, you will have to close most of your hospitals because you have way too many...

Whoever said I want a single payer plan - or anything like any health care system that exists anywhere in Europe? Certainly not me. So you have set up a straw horse - and knocked it down.

Like it or not, you're going to have to start rationing health care via Medicare (and Medicaid) and even in a national single payer plan, you'd still have to ration health care.

You don't have the money.

Actually - my husband and I do have the money. Whether it's for medical care or skilled nursing care - whatever we might need in the future. We have been saving and investing for 4 decades for such possibilities. OTOH - we both agree it would be idiotic for any entity (like the government) - or for us personally - to spend $100k on anything medical to buy an extra 8 weeks of life. I'd rather take a first class trip to a country/city we like - stay in a 5 star hotel - eat world class food (wouldn't have to worry about my diet ) and then die. I reckon I'll be scared when I'm fixin' to die - but beautiful surroundings - great food - and having my husband - the love of my life - near me - would take the edge off things.

I think maybe the source of your info got confused on the taxes.

The only tax I was talking about is the new Medicare tax on unearned income. Congress has not only not increased FICA taxes for the most part - it has extended the tax cuts currently in effect to the end of 2012. It's kind of ironic IMO. It used to be that conservative Republicans were accused of trying to downsize the government by cutting taxes ("starving the beast"). I haven't heard that rhetoric when it comes to the FICA tax holiday. Robyn