Submitted by jonnycsd on September 29, 2009 - 11:47pm.
patb wrote:
Reagan was utterly wrong about Medicare, what makes him right now?
Medicare is a financial disaster. Quoting the Trustees of the medicare program: "Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current program parameters."
Submitted by Eugene on September 30, 2009 - 1:28am.
jonnycsd wrote:
patb wrote:
Reagan was utterly wrong about Medicare, what makes him right now?
Medicare is a financial disaster. Quoting the Trustees of the medicare program: "Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current program parameters."
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
It has lower administrative costs (as a percentage of total expenditures) than any other insurance company in the country...
Of course, since the overall cost of healthcare has been going up at an alarming rate (as much as 10%/year), and the share of total population over 65 (eligible for Medicare) is expected to double by 2050, it will be increasingly difficult over time to provide the same quality of service to all eligible citizens on the same budget.
There's one method that can potentially make a world of difference, it's called comparative effectiveness research ... basically, allocating some grant money to research that would compare different treatments and conclude how effective they are, and then use results of this research to save Medicare some money. But, for sume unfathomable reason, the Republican party is up in arms against comparative effectiveness. Some conspiracy theorists say that it is so because Republicans hate Medicare and they'd do everything to bankrupt it. And then we could go back to the they way health care worked in preindustrial era - when only rich people got proper healthcare, and poor people had to choose between working till the age of 80 or dying from some treatable disease because they couldn't afford treatment.
Submitted by Russell on September 30, 2009 - 7:25am.
Withholding medical care is one of the means our masters use to keep us cowering puppets and slaves. It's like holding back water from a slave laboring in the cotton fields until a few more acres are cleaned. Coupled with a debt based economy very few people will ever even contemplate bucking the system.
Having established that practically the only way to avoid the risk of complete calamity from injury or illness is to work for the government, or corporations or some other source of inexpensive "group coverage"(which drives down wages), all but the wealthy or more exceptional risk takers, are effectively shackled.
Submitted by ucodegen on September 30, 2009 - 11:42am.
It has lower administrative costs (as a percentage of total expenditures) than any other insurance company in the country...
Statement without proof does not make it true.. What I have seen tends to disagree with your statement. That said, it is hard to really know what Medicare is costing the country on a per-person basis. The money transfer from your salary to fund Medicare is not broken out separately.
Submitted by CONCHO on September 30, 2009 - 12:07pm.
The money transfer from your salary to fund Medicare is not broken out separately.
Wrong. Look on the back of your paycheck, you should see both SSDI and MDCR. SSDI taxes combined employer/employee are 12.4% of gross up to the SS limit of $102000. MDCR combined employer/employee is 2.9% of gross up to the SS limit. So the amounts are deducted separately.
However all of this goes into the general fund and can be used to build bridges to nowhere. buy a welfare queen a Cadillac, or bomb goatherders in places that 99% of Americans can't find on a map.
Submitted by air_ogi on September 30, 2009 - 1:19pm.
ucodegen wrote:
Statement without proof does not make it true.. What I have seen tends to disagree with your statement. That said, it is hard to really know what Medicare is costing the country on a per-person basis. The money transfer from your salary to fund Medicare is not broken out separately.
I am not sure what is the reason for such hate of public option. Insurance company is a simple business, it takes premium money and pays it when needed. It doesn't do anything magical or complicated.
The best insurance company for the consumer is the one with lowest overhead, lowest costs of capital and least profit. And the government wins handily in all 3 cases categories.
Submitted by SK in CV on September 30, 2009 - 2:02pm.
This is mostly true.
CONCHO wrote:
Wrong. Look on the back of your paycheck, you should see both SSDI and MDCR. SSDI taxes combined employer/employee are 12.4% of gross up to the SS limit of $102000. MDCR combined employer/employee is 2.9% of gross up to the SS limit. So the amounts are deducted separately.
However all of this goes into the general fund and can be used to build bridges to nowhere. buy a welfare queen a Cadillac, or bomb goatherders in places that 99% of Americans can't find on a map.
SS and Medicare are deducted separately, though some employers do lump them together for the purpose of showing deductions from paychecks. (which is perfectly legal)
However, technically, neither OASDI nor Medicare taxes go directly into the general fund. Both go into their separate trusts, which, by law, can only be invested in non-negotiable special issue US government securities. So the old canard that the goverment is "raiding" the trust funds is just that. Even if it weren't required for the current budget, it would still be lent back to the general fund, there is no place else for it to go, even if there was no other federal debt and the budget was otherwise balanced or showed a surplus.
As to the broader point, comparing the financing of Medicare with the financing of the proposed public options is absurd. Medicare is not designed to be a full cost/premium plan. The proposed public option plans (at least with regards to the House plan) is. The actual operation of the reimbursement side is comparable. (Though not necessarily coverage. Ultimately, coverage design may be significantly different.)
And medicare is, and has been for over 40 years, a reasonably efficient operation. Specially when compared to the public perception of government bureaucracies. Reimbursement for most medical providers is close to market rates in most markets, and payment is efficient (specially when compared to private insurance companies). As noted, administrative costs are very low. It does have problems. Fraud has been almost ignored for the last 8 years, though improvements have been significant recently through better enforcement, and it can still get better.
Submitted by CONCHO on September 30, 2009 - 4:17pm.
However, technically, neither OASDI nor Medicare taxes go directly into the general fund. Both go into their separate trusts, which, by law, can only be invested in non-negotiable special issue US government securities. So the old canard that the goverment is "raiding" the trust funds is just that.
"Tax income is deposited on a daily basis and is invested in "special-issue" securities. The cash exchanged for the securities goes into the general fund of the Treasury and is indistinguishable from other cash in the general fund."
So yes, the social security and medicare trust funds get special issue securities that the US government is obligated to make good on, however they are constantly claiming that they won't be able to make good on these and that they're going to have to lower benefits or even cancel the program because it's unsustainable. Why is it unsustainable? Because they are wasting the money on wars, welfare, and bridges to nowhere. What would happen to a private insurance company that squandered its premium money? They could be sued and some of their executives might wind up in handcuffs. Yet when this is done by our government we all just accept it.
Submitted by SK in CV on September 30, 2009 - 4:52pm.
CONCHO wrote:
What would happen to a private insurance company that squandered its premium money? They could be sued and some of their executives might wind up in handcuffs. Yet when this is done by our government we all just accept it.
LOL!! No! They would get bailed out. And the executives don't get handcuffs, they get giant bonuses. (See AIG)
But it's really nothing like private insurance. Social Security was never designed to be a pre-funded insurance (nor was medicare for that matter). But the trustees and congress have f'd up royally and haven't listened to the actuaries' warnings for 25 years. Benefits were increased to unsustainable levels. Population growth hasn't even reached the lower ends of projections. It's a political hot potato that no congress has ever wanted to deal with.
Reagan was utterly wrong about Medicare, what makes him right now?
Medicare is a financial disaster. Quoting the Trustees of the medicare program: "Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current program parameters."
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
Medicare is a financial disaster. Quoting the Trustees of the medicare program: "Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current program parameters."
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
It has lower administrative costs (as a percentage of total expenditures) than any other insurance company in the country...
Of course, since the overall cost of healthcare has been going up at an alarming rate (as much as 10%/year), and the share of total population over 65 (eligible for Medicare) is expected to double by 2050, it will be increasingly difficult over time to provide the same quality of service to all eligible citizens on the same budget.
There's one method that can potentially make a world of difference, it's called comparative effectiveness research ... basically, allocating some grant money to research that would compare different treatments and conclude how effective they are, and then use results of this research to save Medicare some money. But, for sume unfathomable reason, the Republican party is up in arms against comparative effectiveness. Some conspiracy theorists say that it is so because Republicans hate Medicare and they'd do everything to bankrupt it. And then we could go back to the they way health care worked in preindustrial era - when only rich people got proper healthcare, and poor people had to choose between working till the age of 80 or dying from some treatable disease because they couldn't afford treatment.
Withholding medical care is one of the means our masters use to keep us cowering puppets and slaves. It's like holding back water from a slave laboring in the cotton fields until a few more acres are cleaned. Coupled with a debt based economy very few people will ever even contemplate bucking the system.
Having established that practically the only way to avoid the risk of complete calamity from injury or illness is to work for the government, or corporations or some other source of inexpensive "group coverage"(which drives down wages), all but the wealthy or more exceptional risk takers, are effectively shackled.
This is all very uncivilized.
Statement without proof does not make it true.. What I have seen tends to disagree with your statement. That said, it is hard to really know what Medicare is costing the country on a per-person basis. The money transfer from your salary to fund Medicare is not broken out separately.
The money transfer from your salary to fund Medicare is not broken out separately.
Wrong. Look on the back of your paycheck, you should see both SSDI and MDCR. SSDI taxes combined employer/employee are 12.4% of gross up to the SS limit of $102000. MDCR combined employer/employee is 2.9% of gross up to the SS limit. So the amounts are deducted separately.
However all of this goes into the general fund and can be used to build bridges to nowhere. buy a welfare queen a Cadillac, or bomb goatherders in places that 99% of Americans can't find on a map.
Statement without proof does not make it true.. What I have seen tends to disagree with your statement. That said, it is hard to really know what Medicare is costing the country on a per-person basis. The money transfer from your salary to fund Medicare is not broken out separately.
proof:
http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/036617.htm
I am not sure what is the reason for such hate of public option. Insurance company is a simple business, it takes premium money and pays it when needed. It doesn't do anything magical or complicated.
The best insurance company for the consumer is the one with lowest overhead, lowest costs of capital and least profit. And the government wins handily in all 3 cases categories.
This is mostly true.
Wrong. Look on the back of your paycheck, you should see both SSDI and MDCR. SSDI taxes combined employer/employee are 12.4% of gross up to the SS limit of $102000. MDCR combined employer/employee is 2.9% of gross up to the SS limit. So the amounts are deducted separately.
However all of this goes into the general fund and can be used to build bridges to nowhere. buy a welfare queen a Cadillac, or bomb goatherders in places that 99% of Americans can't find on a map.
SS and Medicare are deducted separately, though some employers do lump them together for the purpose of showing deductions from paychecks. (which is perfectly legal)
However, technically, neither OASDI nor Medicare taxes go directly into the general fund. Both go into their separate trusts, which, by law, can only be invested in non-negotiable special issue US government securities. So the old canard that the goverment is "raiding" the trust funds is just that. Even if it weren't required for the current budget, it would still be lent back to the general fund, there is no place else for it to go, even if there was no other federal debt and the budget was otherwise balanced or showed a surplus.
As to the broader point, comparing the financing of Medicare with the financing of the proposed public options is absurd. Medicare is not designed to be a full cost/premium plan. The proposed public option plans (at least with regards to the House plan) is. The actual operation of the reimbursement side is comparable. (Though not necessarily coverage. Ultimately, coverage design may be significantly different.)
And medicare is, and has been for over 40 years, a reasonably efficient operation. Specially when compared to the public perception of government bureaucracies. Reimbursement for most medical providers is close to market rates in most markets, and payment is efficient (specially when compared to private insurance companies). As noted, administrative costs are very low. It does have problems. Fraud has been almost ignored for the last 8 years, though improvements have been significant recently through better enforcement, and it can still get better.
However, technically, neither OASDI nor Medicare taxes go directly into the general fund. Both go into their separate trusts, which, by law, can only be invested in non-negotiable special issue US government securities. So the old canard that the goverment is "raiding" the trust funds is just that.
This is true, however the cash collected in those taxes ends up in the general fund. From the Social Security Administration website FAQ:
"Tax income is deposited on a daily basis and is invested in "special-issue" securities. The cash exchanged for the securities goes into the general fund of the Treasury and is indistinguishable from other cash in the general fund."
So yes, the social security and medicare trust funds get special issue securities that the US government is obligated to make good on, however they are constantly claiming that they won't be able to make good on these and that they're going to have to lower benefits or even cancel the program because it's unsustainable. Why is it unsustainable? Because they are wasting the money on wars, welfare, and bridges to nowhere. What would happen to a private insurance company that squandered its premium money? They could be sued and some of their executives might wind up in handcuffs. Yet when this is done by our government we all just accept it.
What would happen to a private insurance company that squandered its premium money? They could be sued and some of their executives might wind up in handcuffs. Yet when this is done by our government we all just accept it.
LOL!! No! They would get bailed out. And the executives don't get handcuffs, they get giant bonuses. (See AIG)
But it's really nothing like private insurance. Social Security was never designed to be a pre-funded insurance (nor was medicare for that matter). But the trustees and congress have f'd up royally and haven't listened to the actuaries' warnings for 25 years. Benefits were increased to unsustainable levels. Population growth hasn't even reached the lower ends of projections. It's a political hot potato that no congress has ever wanted to deal with.
LOL!! No! They would get bailed out. And the executives don't get handcuffs, they get giant bonuses. (See AIG)
Touche! I guess maybe I was living in the past...