"one of the most popular programs" wtf thinker, there are only 3 major entitlement programs ... run a thought experiment- Let's say I declare a program that gov't will pay for your lunch, how popular do you think that might be? How about I simply offer that the gov't write everyone a $500K check, think that would be popular? Hey Socrates, no shit it's popular . The question is not whether it is popular, it is whether it is moral and sustainable. My point about Reich is that the left will not even question those points, hence the absolutely assinine sophistry about costs. Do you understand we are all terminally ill? If not heart transplant at 80, how about none at 70? How about no full code at all over 70? Think about it, it is completely aribitrary yet liberals keep insisting on medicine for all as a right that is self obvious. You will suffer some and you will die, I guarantee it and Robby Reich's programs cannot save you. I do agree that death panel scares were stupid. Death panels have existed since we walked the earth, they used to be called families. Medicare does not do the same thing as private insurance, which pays more on average for a given service for one thing. Medicare does not decide what is 'fair', you are seriously lacking in education on that. Medicare simply performs rationing based upon their budget, it's all bean counting. As a 'thinker' you should know that 'fair' is an unworkable concept in the real world anyway, you are showing your immaturity by your lack of sophistication. You seem to think that any entitlement program, no matter how economically disasterous and immoral, is just a great idea. You must be spending too much time listening to the Robert Reich types. I would think someone calling themselves 'free thinker' would at least not parrot the ideas of small minded people like Reich.
Small fraction of people want suicide...but if you want to save money by not treating terminally ill in the final stages by offering them a quick and easy death -whatever that is, then you must agree that we should also not treat all prisoners, illegals, children of illegals, fetal alcohol syndrome babies, smokers, fat asses, alcoholics, drug addicts, and people over 85. You mean that some insurance company acted badly? No way, Gee I guess that makes it all ok for the gov't to bankrupt us into poverty with social welfare. Do you really need anecdotes about how terrible government can be? Really? are you that damned niave? ...and yes there are no hurdles with government and all runs so much better. Anecdotally I have had both private and public health insurance when I was in the military. The bureaucratic problems and quality were much worse in the government system in my experience. Couple that with no choice and less recourse for incompetance and you get a very inferior product.
boy you sure are a dumb ass for being such a smart ass. what are you 20 years old? your rantings are so convoluted i will just touch on a few of your points. 1. the government runs hundreds of "programs" 2. so taking care of our poor elderly is immoral now? 3. we are all terminally ill. how quaint a concept. 4. on one hand you say let them all die theo you complain because sombody might make a decision to stop treatment. try thinking before you speak. 5. medicare tries to set a fair price.doctors are free to take it or leave it. if no doctors accepted that price what would happen? if medicare gets all of the procedure done with the number of doctors that accept that rate what is that signaling the market? such a simple concept for thinking people. why so hard for you?
Why, all he does is blabbering. A lot of talk with almost no substance. Kind of like Herman Cain talking about his 999 tax plan.
He's talking about running austerity programs. If ya continue to outsource private jobs, then yes, funding will be a problem.
Thanks, I always thought I looked younger than my age too complicated for the thinker I see you always just 'touch' topics irrelevent to what I said You said " ...something should be done about the huge cost of end of life care where huge expense is incured for a futile attempt to keep a terminal person alive" Why you goddamn Hitler clone Happens to be true for anyone older than 19, your body is decaying into the death state right now. Oh wait, did I assume too much about your age? "They" all die no matter what I do because nature made humans mortal, but I never made any statement to that effect. At least read before you post, I've given up asking you to think much. No, they do not, they simply set a price based upon what their budget says they can spend and if they think they can get enough doctors to perform whatever. Fair has nothing to do with it, cost is all that matters. Then the patient will not receive treatment- duh special pleading at its finest! welcome to liberaland folks- where government programs meet your every need, where nobody has to feel guilty, nobody hurts, everyone gets cash and we are all the same.... {start the john lennon}
The numbers absolutely do not say otherwise. Both SS and Medicare have, for almost all of the past 30 years, run surpluses. That the surpluses were blown on other things is a condemnation of general fiscal policy, not Medicare.
Wow, some fallacies and bad assumptions here...but hey, this is ET. As for Medicare having a lower admin cost and being more efficient, not so fast. By law, Medicare patients are the elderly and disabled. Private insurance only has a small % of these patients. So we're already in major apple/orange territory. Sure, Medicare can play accounting tricks and spread their administrative costs over their huge base of actual health care costs. However, if you break it down to cost-per-person, they're more expensive that private plans. As for the bigger picture, we have nothing even close to a free market in health care. The whole employer-provided health care is just another bad idea from the FDR era. There's very little price discipline. Just pay your little $35 co-pay and don't worry that the doc down the street charges twice what an M.D. six blocks away does. But we all pay for these inefficiencies. There are also a ridiculous number of regulations that strangle the system. I have a friend completing a Ph.D. in economics (one of the few who isn't a brainwashed Keynesiot), and he can rattle off dozens of absurd medical regs from memory. In some cases, bureaucrats have created completely arbitrary rules that "feel" good but make an utter mess of the system. In other cases, regulators get duped by special interest groups, just like on Wall St. This will only get worse as we add to the army of regulations/regulators. As for doctors simply refusing Medicare, yeah, some do. However, this can only go so far in the system we have right now. It's really a cop-out to doctors "just don't accept Medicare" on a really large scale. There are a few examples of relatively free market in medical care. Lasik is one. It's not covered by insurance--you pay out of pocket--and not as heavily regulated as many procedures. As a result, the price has fallen since the 1990s while the technology has improved.