22 replies to this topic

[*JB*]

Were we to get "Medicare for all", which is what all doctors want the AMA, Amer Nursing Association, American College of Physicians, and the rest of us who actually take care of people want, we'd be able to get on with taking care of people. Instead of spending our days doing battle with the private health insurers who are only in it for the money and their shareholders, so they work to deny care and critical coverage in order to protect their bottom lines. Unfortunately there are those in congress who would rather deny this coverage to all. I'm not allowed to say who they are, otherwise I get "moderated". So it goes.

mm

MM --

The US does NOT have the money. The Medicare (and SS) trust fund is empty, and the Fed has $75 TRILLION unfunded debt to the future for Medicare and SS...it's ALL been spent.
JUST allowing for Baby Boomer retirement, in 5 years -- to pay for Medicare and SS payments -- the Treasury and the CBO estimates that the government will have to use 20% of ALL tax revenues to just pay the interest on the debt. In 20 years, 50%. You can tax 100% of the income of the "rich" and still not alter this by more than a percent or two. We are headed to OVER 100% of GDP in sovereign debt (NOT including the unfunded obligations to Medicare and SS)

If the Feds paid ANY attention to "protecting the bottom line"....never mind.

BTW, BOTH parties have contributed to this.

As far as I can tell, you seem to think past experience legitmately translates into future expectations...i.e. "Medicare has been EQUALS will be". One thing to add to your considerations, they have NEVER cut funds -- let alone 1/2 $Trillion dollars -- from Medicare before. Wait until that goes into affect!!!


Those that consider the financial state of the country (and the world) -- and what is much more likely in the future -- are not so sanguine.

"Medicare For All" -- i.e., national single payer systems -- have ONLY resulted in rationing and denial of care..and that was occuring well before such wide spread and dire fiscal breakdowns -- IOW, "during the best of times".

Edited by *JB*, 01 July 2010 - 09:37 AM.

[maineman]

I'm a silly New England Liberal who strongly believes that the better side of us encourages us to help those around us who are less fortunate. Always. That said, I also firmly believe the USA is strong enough and innovative enough to provide appropriate medical care for all under a system that combines Medicare and the VA which, by eliminating the enormous non-medical waste from the private inurance companies, would bring out the best in us. We, the richest country around, a champion of liberty and freedom, the country of ideas and innovation, can do this. Should do this. Could have done this years ago. In spite of my enormously profitable bearish stance on the markets lately (how else do you take your family of 6 off to Southern France for 2 weeks - you think I got that money doing Physical Exams? No no no.... I got that holding a bucket load of TZA for the past xxx weeks.)I am always bullish on American. Yes, We can do this. And we will. Mainly because it is the right thing to do. We're a good people at heart, and if we can build big highways, and garbage collection systems, if we can build tons of tanks, bombs, helicopters and deploy them in 2 bizarre and endless wars half the way around the globe with no succinct policy, we can build a basic healthcare system for the folks who are coughing up the dough for those wars. Seems simple to me. I'm hopeful. mm

[*JB*]

“The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the
decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”
Donald Berwick -- new head Medicare and Medicaid Services