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.
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 are constantly criticizing retirees who are worried about the future out of pocket costs through the medicare program. You accuse these people of having an entitlement mentality. However, you yourself have no problem being enrolled in a Kaiser medicare advantage plan. You have posted how tickled you are to have such a low cost plan without almost zip cost to you. Kaiser plans are not offered in my area, so my premium is $100.00 a month for my advantage plan. Considerably higher for a medicap plan. Now maybe you are in the position to spend some of your lucrative pension to pay several hundred dollars a month more for health care but many of us are not in the position to do so, therefore, we worry.
To compare social security and medicare beneficiaries to the Greek entitlement mentality is ludicrous. The strong unions that have infiltrated industrial and government entities are a much better comparision. Lucrative pensions promised at the expense of the taxpayer are definitely unstastainable. We have 50 million people on medicaid, 45 million people receiving food stamps and 10 million people receiving unemployment benefits not to mention other entitlement programs such as section 8 vouchers. It is Obama's delusional desire that a family will not have to pay more than $350.00 a month for health care coverage. While those of us on medicare and fixed incomes are not paying enough at almost the same cost for one person if you have a medigap plan.
Our parents "the greatest generation" receiving social security & medicare were never referred to as receiving entitlements. Maybe it was because there were 16 workers contributing to every beneficiary. Today it is 2 workers for every benificiary. Why did the government not jump on this problem 40+ years ago? They had to know that the massive boomer generation were one day going to be collecting social security & medicare. If contributions would have been increased we could have paid that with no problem. We and our employers always paid in what was told of us. Was it enough? Obviously, not. However, to now accuse us of having an entitlement mentality at age 65+ is outrageous.
Most retired workers in this county do not have lucrative pensions. Most are depending on 401 or IRA plans. If you were savy investors and avoided the down turn in the economy, consider yourself lucky. Maybe you should have a bumper sticker that says "Go Unions".
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.
IF it is Unconstitutional, then it can not be paid.
You are constantly criticizing retirees who are worried about the future out of pocket costs through the medicare program. You accuse these people of having an entitlement mentality. However, you yourself have no problem being enrolled in a Kaiser medicare advantage plan. You have posted how tickled you are to have such a low cost plan without almost zip cost to you. Kaiser plans are not offered in my area, so my premium is $100.00 a month for my advantage plan. Considerably higher for a medicap plan. Now maybe you are in the position to spend some of your lucrative pension to pay several hundred dollars a month more for health care but many of us are not in the position to do so, therefore, we worry.
To compare social security and medicare beneficiaries to the Greek entitlement mentality is ludicrous. The strong unions that have infiltrated industrial and government entities are a much better comparision. Lucrative pensions promised at the expense of the taxpayer are definitely unstastainable. We have 50 million people on medicaid, 45 million people receiving food stamps and 10 million people receiving unemployment benefits not to mention other entitlement programs such as section 8 vouchers. It is Obama's delusional desire that a family will not have to pay more than $350.00 a month for health care coverage. While those of us on medicare and fixed incomes are not paying enough at almost the same cost for one person if you have a medigap plan.
Our parents "the greatest generation" receiving social security & medicare were never referred to as receiving entitlements. Maybe it was because there were 16 workers contributing to every beneficiary. Today it is 2 workers for every benificiary. Why did the government not jump on this problem 40+ years ago? They had to know that the massive boomer generation were one day going to be collecting social security & medicare. If contributions would have been increased we could have paid that with no problem. We and our employers always paid in what was told of us. Was it enough? Obviously, not. However, to now accuse us of having an entitlement mentality at age 65+ is outrageous.
Most retired workers in this county do not have lucrative pensions. Most are depending on 401 or IRA plans. If you were savy investors and avoided the down turn in the economy, consider yourself lucky. Maybe you should have a bumper sticker that says "Go Unions".
At least there are some points that we agree on, such as the one you made in your second paragraph about many city, county, and state public pensions being unsustainable. I would only hasten to add that not all of those pensions are unsustainable, as they vary considerably from one city to another, from one state to another, etc. But it is part of the general problem that we are facing as a nation, and your point ties in well with the general discussion of affordability and sustainability at the federal level. I also blame some public employee unions for this, just as you do. I have never been much of a union man politically, although I am not especially "anti-union" either, so you are imputing a bit much to me that my bumper sticker would be "Go Unions".
I see no contradiction, and I make no apology for my satisfaction with my Medicare Advantage Plan. I have mentioned this in the context of discussions about Medicare Advantage Plans versus traditional Medicare plus a Medigap policy, and also in reponse to people who have predicted the premature demise of the former. Here again I agree: It is one of the oddities of the entire Medicare set-up that there could be as much variation as there is among different areas of the country. However, I still maintain that Medicare is a good bargain, even for those paying somewhat more than I do, when it is compared to what we would have to pay for our own medical care straight out of pocket with no government plan/subsidy. Indeed, I think it is critically important to retain and strengthen Medicare, to make it sustainable, and that is why I disagreed strongly with a previous poster who suggested doing away with the part B premium which is currently deducted from Social Security. If I need to pay more for my plan in the coming years, which seems probable, I will do so without complaint.
You have also included Social Security in your discussion. I am also a supporter of Social Security, and I have been consistent in opposing those who want to destroy it by privatizing it. I have, just like you, opposed the use of the word "entitlement" to characterize Social Security, because that word has become tainted by its use for straight welfare programs. If we have paid into Soc. Sec., then obviously we are "entitled" (in the good sense of that word) to our retirement benefits.
Nonetheless I do believe (and this is where we differ) that there is a problem with a certain entitlement mentality among people of my generation. I do not think we should expect Medicare to continue without any changes at all. It would be wonderful if it could, but I just don't think it's realistic. My hope is that a few non-draconian changes will give the results that will be satisfactory for the vast majority.
To SCBaker: I was attempting to respond to the major points you made, but I neglected to discuss Greece. First, I agree that it would not be correct to equate Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries in general with the Greek entitlement mentality. What I did do is equate what a particular poster (not you) wrote with the Greek entitlement mentality because what that poster wrote reminded me so strongly of the Greek attitude. Even in saying that, though, I did not mean to imply that we are nearly as far down the road as the Greeks are. It is a certain underlying basic attitude that I was trying to describe.
One other thing. And it's the old problem of the English use of "you" and "your" to mean either people in general or "you" as a second-person singular form of address. So when you wrote about "your lucrative pension" I wasn't sure if you meant my lucrative pension of if you were talking about people in general who have lucrative pensions. Therefore, just for the record, I do not have a lucrative pension. I do have a pension, which I would describe as adequate but far from lucrative. I could live on my pension alone if I had to and I wouldn't be suffering, but I'm glad that a lifetime of living below my means (a life-long habit of frugality) has enabled me to have a few resources which supplement my pension. I still continue to live frugally, as it's the only way of life in which I would feel comfortable.
Indeed, I think it is critically important to retain and strengthen Medicare, to make it sustainable, and that is why I disagreed strongly with a previous poster who suggested doing away with the part B premium which is currently deducted from Social Security. If I need to pay more for my plan in the coming years, which seems probable, I will do so without complaint.
You are taking my comment about doing away with the Part B premium completely out of context of what I said.
I suggested that, since the government is going to default on Medicare probably, at some point, to complete collapse, it should just do away with the program and let us all buy our own health insurance the way we have to buy our own property and car insurance. It is after all a working capitalist society, so why burden the taxpayers by upholding a program that the government itself put in place and has been collecting from us on all our working lives? Why dangle a carrot when they know the ultimate feasibility of sustaining the program? Let us have our $115/month back, plus the money from all the years of paying in. Maybe retirees can come up with our own privatized "group plan" (would the health industry lobbyists ever let that happen?).
In the current popular view of retiree "entitlements" to which you adhere, without Medicare retirees including all those who agree with you will be happily (or unfortunately, as the case may be) on their own. Medicare would be minimally retained as a humanitarian program (akin to the US government program that is spending $2.6 million taxpayer dollars on studying the behavior of Chinese prostitutes in Brazil or wherever) for disabled citizens and elderly citizens who fall below the federal poverty level (one in five of us are now at poverty level, btw).
Most retired workers in this county do not have lucrative pensions. Most are depending on 401 or IRA plans.
...and the social security that we, like our parents before us, paid into and receive, which were neither then, nor now, "entitlements."
This reality is the key to understanding the viewpoints of different posters. Naturally, to those who have comfortable pensions (who btw worked no harder than others who do not), cannot see past their own situation.
You are taking my comment about doing away with the Part B premium completely out of context of what I said.
I suggested that, since the government is going to default on Medicare probably, at some point, to complete collapse, it should just do away with the program and let us all buy our own health insurance the way we have to buy our own property and car insurance. It is after all a working capitalist society, so why burden the taxpayers by upholding a program that the government itself put in place and has been collecting from us on all our working lives? Why dangle a carrot when they know the ultimate feasibility of sustaining the program? Let us have our $115/month back, plus the money from all the years of paying in. Maybe retirees can come up with our own privatized "group plan" (would the health industry lobbyists ever let that happen?).
In the current popular view of retiree "entitlements" to which you adhere, without Medicare retirees including all those who agree with you will be happily (or unfortunately, as the case may be) on their own. Medicare would be minimally retained as a humanitarian program (akin to the US government program that is spending $2.6 million taxpayer dollars on studying the behavior of Chinese prostitutes in Brazil or wherever) for disabled citizens and elderly citizens who fall below the federal poverty level (one in five of us are now at poverty level, btw).
I despise "doomsday thinking" that suggests that there is nothing that can be done to save Medicare. What is needed is a willingness to bite the bullet and increase revenues while at the same time limiting benefits that are only doing marginal good for recipients. Escort Rider makes the suggestion that the elderly be required to contribute more out of their social security to pay for Medicare. That's one simple and excellent solution that would help boost the solvency of the program. Here are a few others I have made in the past that no one seems to pay attention too:
1. Increase taxes, particularly on those age 50 to 65, like myself, who will be retiring and using Medicare. I would suggest an additional surcharge for all of us in the amount of $500 per year.
2. Limit services that Medicare pays for. Set up a committee to determine what treatments really don't help most people and stop paying for them. No more payments for cancer drugs and treatments that cost $100,000 and only add a few months to someone's life.
3. Price or cost controls on medical services provided to Medicare beneficiaries. Doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies should be informed what the maximum amount they can charge for any service or medication is. Of course, there should be healthcare providers on a committee to set these price ceilings. If medical people want to leave their profession because of this and go do something else, than let them. If they think practicing medicine in India is a better deal than here in the USA, they have my permission to go.
4. Raise the retirement age to about 69 and limit Medicare eligibility to those at retirement age.
What should not be done:
1. A "Paul Ryan Plan" that abolishes Medicare for younger people and forces them to seek private health insurance. The whole reason we have Medicare in the first place is that historically private health insurers chose not to insure the elderly. There is no profit in insuring elderly people because of the demands that they make on private insurance and on the health care system. Ryan's plan is doomed to fail because the government could never provide a large enough voucher that could pay a private health insurance enough money to cover these needs. Also, realize that unlike Medicare, a private health insurance company is taking at least 10% "off the top" for profit. All this plan will do is enrich private health insurers at the expense of the elderly.
2. Mindlessly believe that somehow the "free market" will solve the healthcare problem for seniors. It won't. Didn't work before 1965 (pre Medicare). It won't work now either when there is a vastly larger population of seniors.
Part of what has to change is simply the attitude of seniors. There are too many who believe that Medicare ought to pay for every health care intervention that exists. Medicare should only be paying for those that truly add to both longevity and quality of life. There comes a point when treatment for terminal diseases should stop and the only intervention that Medicare should pay for is hospice care. I had to learn this hard way with my own father. I won't make the same mistake when it comes to my own care.
Last edited by markg91359; 09-23-2011 at 06:44 AM..
Well, this has certainly been interesting to follow. I have a question for each of you, which I'll answer after posing the question.
If you accept that there will be changes to "Medicare", (includes Medicare Advantage, Part D, Medigap policies, and so forth), of some sort, of which none of us can accurately predict, nor control. Within your control, what are you doing that will help you to prepare and eventually deal with the changes?
For me.
Have an advanced directive/living will in place.
Exercise regularly (gardening in a big way and some long strolls, short hikes).
Quit smoking 8 years ago. Haven't had a drink of alcohol for 20 years or so.
Eat lots of veggies, and fruits, light on red meats, heavy on fish.
Keep my weight down.
Eat out, maybe two times a month.
Live frugally (have been learning how to do that more and more) and plan to cut back more at retirement in 2~ years. I'd be a fool to think that costs to live - the basics, food, shelter and healthcare - will not increase at an accelerating pace. Demographics bake that in.
Am into acceptance and personal responsibility as a way to live. I know I am not in control, so I strive to turn everything over. Limits stress greatly.
Adjust as I need to. Sometimes voluntarily, sometimes kicking and screaming. But adjust I will.
I am not particularly a fatalist, nor interested in a specific political parties view of the "correct' solution. As the kids say, it is what it is. Thanks again for everyones' viewpoint.
Last edited by earthlyfather; 09-23-2011 at 07:33 AM..
Reason: grammar...prolly missed a couple of other fractured sentences EF
Comment:
"We're starting a 10- to 20-year period of virtually no interest on savings/CDs/ safe investments. 0% interest for an incredibly long time. It'll be a disaster for anyone already in retirement when their savings/CDs come due, and a disaster for anyone retiring in the next 10 years.
Thanks Ben Bernake!
THIS is what is devastating for us--much more than medicare/health insurance problems. We did everything right--lived frugally, saved enough and managed our own retirement portfolio, and then we put everything into safety for retirement---CDs and Treasuries that were paying average yields of 5%---which gave us good income above inflation, but now they are coming due (maturing) and the income hit we will take since yields are almost 0 and will stay that way for at least another 2 years (thanks to Bernanke) is devastating. We are experimenting with GNMAEs which are the only semi-safe thing we can find that's still yielding around 3%. But they have more risk, and have to be watched constantly. Grrrr
Quit smoking 8 years ago. Haven't had a drink of alcohol for 20 years or so.
I agree with your approach, and I also exercise regularly, eat a healthy diet, keep my weight down, and I quit smoking over 35 years ago.
As for alcohol, and this is really a side issue which does not detract from your main point, numerous solid epidemiological studies have shown that people who drink in very moderate quantities have a gain in longevity vis à vis non-drinkers. However, the sweet spot is pretty small (two drinks a day for men and one for women, and one per day for men over 65) and all the gains are reversed and then some as alcohol consumption climbs above those modest levels. So you are much better off than the heavy drinkers, but zero is not the optimal intake of alcohol, unless one has a problem controlling one's drinking, in which case zero is the best solution.
A recent book which is an excellent summary of the evidence to date is entitled "The Science of Drinking". I forgot the name of the author, but he is a Ph.D. toxicologist and has done a very thorough job.
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 forgot to respond about the Greeks
But adjust I will.
