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.
And if Medicare is going to be cut, let's end the mandatory monthly deduction from SS checks--better known as part B, or $115. I'm sure we're all going to need that pittance to help pay our own medical bills when we're 80.
P.S. Was there any mention whatsoever about ending the unbelievable corporate welfare handouts? I'm sure not.
I want mine. To hell with the rest of the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl
And if Medicare is going to be cut, let's end the mandatory monthly deduction from SS checks--better known as part B, or $115. I'm sure we're all going to need that pittance to help pay our own medical bills when we're 80.
You don't get it at all. Medicare is in trouble financially. In other words, it is not sustainable in its present form even in the short to medium term. Something has to be done. So what do you propose? You propose making the problem much worse by removing the funding for approximately 25% of the cost of Medicare Part B, which is approximately 75% subsidized by general tax revenue already. (It is Part A which is paid for out of the FICA taxes which are deducted from our paychecks.)
You could argue that general tax revenue should just take over for the Part B premium that you do not want to pay anymore, but the problem with that is that general tax revenue is already stretched to the max. You really want that free lunch, don't you? Look where that attitude landed the Greeks when it was carried to the extreme. All those retirees under the age of 55 in Greece are terribly unhappy that their cushy retirement benefits are being cut. The entire Greek welfare state was unsustainable big time, and the chickens are now coming home to roost.
Maybe you could have some bumper stickers made up: "I want mine. To hell with the rest of the country."
You don't get it at all. Medicare is in trouble financially. In other words, it is not sustainable in its present form even in the short to medium term. Something has to be done. So what do you propose? You propose making the problem much worse by removing the funding for approximately 25% of the cost of Medicare Part B, which is approximately 75% subsidized by general tax revenue already. (It is Part A which is paid for out of the FICA taxes which are deducted from our paychecks.)
You could argue that general tax revenue should just take over for the Part B premium that you do not want to pay anymore, but the problem with that is that general tax revenue is already stretched to the max. You really want that free lunch, don't you? Look where that attitude landed the Greeks when it was carried to the extreme. All those retirees under the age of 55 in Greece are terribly unhappy that their cushy retirement benefits are being cut. The entire Greek welfare state was unsustainable big time, and the chickens are now coming home to roost.
Maybe you could have some bumper stickers made up: "I want mine. To hell with the rest of the country."
I most certainly do get it. End Medicare and let us all fend for ourselves, and that will remove the amount deducted each month, adding $115 back to the checks that many elders desperately need to live on. Those who can pay for medical care will, and those who cannot will not. The government should not subsidize health care for anyone but the disabled and elderly over age 70 who fall below poverty. Everyone else, buy your own insurance. It's coming close to that now. If we are in such doodoo now, what's it going to be like in 2020?? The whole healthcare and insurance industry is not sustainable by any stretch of the imagination, no matter how many reduction plans Obama or the next pres comes up with.
Repeat: Was there any mention whatsoever about ending the unbelievable corporate welfare handouts? I'm sure not.
Last edited by RiverBird; 09-22-2011 at 03:17 PM..
Until such time as tort reform is addressed, medical costs will not decrease. I believe it is absolutely essential that physicians and other medical workers be immune from lawsuites unless it is intentional malpractice.
Until such time as tort reform is addressed, medical costs will not decrease. I believe it is absolutely essential that physicians and other medical workers be immune from lawsuites unless it is intentional malpractice.
My wife's cousin works in a doctors office. A woman came in and asked for a second opinion about a deviated septum. After the examination the doctor asked her if she had any questions. "Yes, what does my deviated septum look like?"
The doctor picked up a sheet of paper and made a drawing on it she couldn't see. When he flipped it around it was a picture of a boat.
She didn't have a deviated septum...
Until such time as doctor greed is addressed, medical costs will not decrease.
The problem will not be resolved. The lobbyists have too much power and big corporations have their hands too deep in the pockets of those (not) making decisions.
Repeat: Was there any mention whatsoever about ending the unbelievable corporate welfare handouts? I'm sure not.
The use of the emotionally loaded words "welfare handouts" just leads away from any understanding of what happened when the economy tanked about three years ago. Let's take two of the largest recipient groups of the corporate bailouts - auto manufacturers and mega-banks. The money pumped into these two areas by the government were not "handouts", but were secured by equity positions and/or repayment with interest agreements. The word "handout" implies there is no recourse or expectation of getting the money back. Quite the opposite is the actual case: Either the auto companies have paid it almost all back now and the banks have paid a substantial amount back, with interest, or it is the other way around and the banks have paid it almost all back and the auto companies have paid a substantial amount back. (Sorry I don't remember which way it is.) Mention of "corporate welfare handouts" in the context of a discussion of the financial problems of Medicare just creates an erroneous impression that if these "handouts" could be ended or reversed then all federal financial problems would be over and sidetracks the discussion into a counter-factual dead end.
The use of the emotionally loaded words "welfare handouts" just leads away from any understanding of what happened when the economy tanked about three years ago. Let's take two of the largest recipient groups of the corporate bailouts - auto manufacturers and mega-banks. The money pumped into these two areas by the government were not "handouts", but were secured by equity positions and/or repayment with interest agreements. The word "handout" implies there is no recourse or expectation of getting the money back. Quite the opposite is the actual case: Either the auto companies have paid it almost all back now and the banks have paid a substantial amount back, with interest, or it is the other way around and the banks have paid it almost all back and the auto companies have paid a substantial amount back. (Sorry I don't remember which way it is.) Mention of "corporate welfare handouts" in the context of a discussion of the financial problems of Medicare just creates an erroneous impression that if these "handouts" could be ended or reversed then all federal financial problems would be over and sidetracks the discussion into a counter-factual dead end.
We are talking about the federal budget here. There is many a brilliant economist calling for the end of corporate welfare, much of which the corporate world claims it does not need. There are no erroneous impressions, smart Americans can see the situation writ large.
Until such time as doctor greed is addressed, medical costs will not decrease.
I do not deny that "doctor greed" exists, but I cannot help but wonder if tort law abuse is not an even bigger problem. Malpractice insurance costs are only one aspect of the problem; the running of unnecessary tests and procedures as a defense against potential tort claims is also very expensive. There was a post (probably in Health and Wellness) by someone who worked in an ob/gyn office who said that there is a very high probability of a lawsuit whenevera less than perfect baby is born. I would call that consumer greed and lawyer greed, all while having the greatest sympathy for parents of a child with birth defects. We have this mindset in our society whereby if something goes wrong then by gosh someone else should have to pay for it, whether that someone else was the proximate cause of the wrong or not. Even an ultimately unsuccessful lawsuit can still be very expensive to defend, hence the absurdly high malpractice insurance rates.
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.
I want mine. To hell with the rest of the country.
The whole healthcare and insurance industry is not sustainable by any stretch of the imagination, no matter how many reduction plans Obama or the next pres comes up with.
