SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (47100)11/17/2010 11:40:33 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
Social Security is a huge problem, but an even bigger one is Medicare. Medicaid is huge as well. The so called "reform" didn't solve those problems. Cuts in payouts for procedures that are performed aren't going to work to a large enough extent, either they won't happen (which is reasonably likely) or they will just create shortage of doctors to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients, which will likely eventually get the larger payments restored, or which will cause the system to be a general failure.

This is why it was necessary to create a framework for making medicine socialised. Once the artificial shortages create outrage they can step in with socialized medicine to solve the problem that the Obama/PelosiCare created.

I would move the Medicaid age up, along with the Social Security age, and I think larger co-pays or deductibles, perhaps a restoration of the "doughnut hole" would be reasonable.

You make a lot of sense. Larger deductibles with total payments resembling the costs of providing medical care would go a long way to solving the "crisis". Personal responsibility has to be part of any formula to solve the problem.

Medicare itself is likely a bad idea, for poorer people you could have still had Medicaid (or some other program aimed at the same target), while for non-poor elderly people you could have them pay like everyone else who isn't poor (either out of pocket or more likely with private insurance),

The problem was that in order to convince people it was not welfare it had to be structured to cover the non poor. Having people paying "premiums" for a later benefit helped sell it.

that's hindsight a couple of generations later, ending the program now isn't plausible, and ending it quickly isn't even reasonable.

Our entire insurance premium structure is predicated on the assumption that medicare will pick up part of the tab on seniors. If you think premiums are high now on seniors, just watch them soar when private insurance has to pay the lion's share of the tab.

Whether it is politically easy to end the system or not, it is a good idea.