First let me say, I think Social Security and Medicare has served it's purpose in the past. The boom and quality of life that Medicare gives to the
elderly is great. This was one reason I was against Obamacare. Obamacare turns Medicare into an insurance company. Medicare has always been a
reimbursement program. Congress sets reimbursement rates and then you shop for a Doctor that will accept those reimbursement rates. Obamacare is
designed to ration healthcare and slow the growth in life expectancy for the elderly. This is because they're living longer and collecting benefits
Obamacare isn't about the uninsured at all. The reason you use the uninsured because it's made up of mostly young people who don't use a lot of
healthcare. So you take away from the elderly who use a lot of healthcare and you start a new Government program for the "uninsured."
Programs like Medicare and Social Security should have been changed. The main reason is because the increase in life expectancy. These programs were
instituted when life expectancy was around 65 years of age. It has now increased to 80 and with science and technology it will increase even more. So
my 4 year old nephew will not need Medicare and S.S. in the same way as my 70 year old Aunt.
The systems are pyramid schemes that are not built for an increase in life expectancy. They depend on workers at the bottom of the pyramid paying out
the benefits to those retiring at the top of the pyramid. When people live longer and collect benefits longer, the pyramid starts to turn into a
diamond and you have more people collecting benefits and not enough workers to pay those benefits. Here's a recent article about life expectancy.
Human longevity has improved so rapidly over the past century that 72 is the new 30, scientists say.
Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock, Germany, said progress in lowering the risk of death at all ages has been
so rapid since 1900 that life expectancy has risen faster than it did in the previous 200 millennia since modern man began to evolve from hominid
The pace of increase in life expectancy has left industrialised economies unprepared for the cost of providing retirement income to so many for so
With advances in areas of genetics, nanotechnology and more, life expectancy might be over 100 years of age soon.
So in order to fix these systems instead of making them worse and adding to the debt like Obamacare does, they should have been changed.
Raise the retirement age to 75-80 for people 45 and under like myself.
Allow them to invest part of the money taking in into Social Security and Medical Savings Accounts.
Start having parents invest in their children's Medical Account at birth and then when they're 18 they can use this Account for medical purposes.
Start a Kickstarter type website for the best ideas for S.S. and Medicare. I trust the minds of citizens over the crooked dictates from
We also learn today that Obamacare will add 6.2 trillion to the debt when Obama said he wouldn't support a program that adds 1 dime to the debt.
Obamacare will increase the long-term federal deficit by $6.2 trillion, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released
Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), who requested the report, revealed the findings this morning at a Senate Budget Committee hearing. The report, he
said, “confirms everything critics and Republicans were saying about the faults of this bill,” and “dramatically proves that the promises made
assuring the nation that the largest new entitlement program in history would not add one dime to the deficit were false.”
Let me end by saying both parties are corrupt. I was hard on Bush but it seems you here this more and more as an excuse for Obama. Obama is just
powerless yet when Bush was in office he was all powerful and blamed for everything. Obama is probably one of the most powerful President this
Country has ever seen. This is because he has a compliant media who bends over backwards for him.
So please, no post crying about corruption in both parties. That goes without saying. This is about Obama and his policies not Bush and everyone else
that people blame instead of Obama.
i think you may have forgotten about his death panels. i have forgotten how many there are going to be on the board. but they are going to evaluate,
procedures, meds, and other things and see if you are worth the expense.
i dare say it won't be long before the the elderly, terminally ill, and those who can't afford to pay for it all out of their own pocket start dying
off in droves.
this would off set the cost of medicare and free up the social security for the elite, to put that money in their pockets.
edit on 26-2-2013 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)
The biggest issue with healthcare in America is cost and the biggest cost-source has nothing at all to do with care or medicine or hospital rooms,
It's like this - For every dollar your doctor charges for services, the health insurance industry tacks on rough two and a half dollars. One of those
dollars goes to the doctor, another dollar and half to pay the wages of the multi-billion dollar health insurance industry and the last dollar goes to
shareholders of that industry.
So, what might cost you $60 for a vist to your physician, becomes $150 or more.
Who do you think pays for all those people in the insurance offices filing claims and calculating deductibles and refusing your claims?
The health insurance industry is a middleman leech, that stands directly between the patient and the physician. Without that leech, the cost of
healthcare would be about one half to one third of the current price.
Giving healthcare back to the people would save the average American untold dollars while, at the same time, reducing their monthly payouts to those
who spend their time looking for reasons NOT to pay claims.
Of course, there would be a very painful transition between what we now know and the end of the tunnel. That's where a retrograde public option could
work as a temporary alternative that would slowly bring the nation off the insurance platform to one where most people could afford to pay for their
visits in full, in cash... just as we do now with what we call co-pays.
edit on 26-2-2013 by redoubt because: (no reason given)
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.