Sunday, June 5, 2016

Medicare explained


The federal government is set to cut Medicare spending on older Americans and also to extract more Medicare taxes from younger Americans who can’t get any benefit from the program.


“Medicare is totally flying under the radar,” Dr. Lee Vliet, a preventive medicine physician with practices in Arizona and Texas, tells Breitbart News.
“Medicare is a single payer system in that funding comes from the taxpayers, but it is like Obamacare in preserving a lucrative role for private cronies, who receive the government money and disburse it,” Vliet explains. “When Medicare was enacted there was immediate trouble with an explosion in costs, resulting in an almost immediate violation of the original legislative promise of no interference with physician decision-making, or with their compensation.”
Older Americans on Medicare have faced big out-of-pocket costs that are about to get even bigger. In a report on Obamacare’s sixth year, Heritage Foundation health policy expert Dr. Robert Moffit notes that President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare reform would cut $715 billion from Medicare over the next decade to help pay for Obamacare.

“It is logically impossible to cut payments for Medicare services without affecting seniors who depend on those services,” Moffit writes, observing that in their 2015 report, the Medicare Trustees confirmed the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Chief Actuary’s concerns about the severe impact of Medicare healthcare provider payment reductions on older Americans’ access to healthcare.

The CMS Actuary projected that by 2040, most hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies will become unprofitable, leading to a significant reduction in access to healthcare for older Americans.

“Few seniors have complained about the lack of an alternative, or the fact that seniors must enroll in Medicare Part A if they want their Social Security benefits,” Vliet observes. “The question is: Will Medicare be able to continue to provide the care today’s seniors expect? The answer is an unequivocal NO.”

Medicare is a government-run ponzi scheme, enacted by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, which shifts the cost of healthcare for current older Americans on to younger working Americans.

In addition to the problem of increasing restrictions on healthcare for Americans on Medicare, there is the other dilemma of forcing younger, working Americans to pay for current Medicare recipients’ health needs even though the Medicare program will unlikely be there for them when it is their turn to retire. The question remains whether younger Americans should be able to save for their own retirement healthcare rather than be forced to pay taxes into a declining Medicare system.
Americans must sign onto Medicare Part A – which covers hospitalization – when they turn 65, or else forfeit their Social Security benefits. Unelected bureaucrats created this rule in the 1990s during the Clinton administration, even though the actual Social Security or Medicare legislations say nothing about such a requirement. A lawsuit aimed at decoupling the two programs failed in 2012, leaving any remedy of the situation up to Congress.
Physician and Arizona state Sen. Dr. Kelli Ward (R) – who is running a primary challenge against incumbent U.S. Sen. John McCain, tells Breitbart News, “Unelected bureaucrats have no business forcing government-controlled healthcare on Americans who choose other options.”
“Holding hostage a major portion of a worker’s lifetime earnings is not only unethical – a fiduciary dollar is a fiduciary dollar – it is also in this case entirely unconstitutional,” Ward adds. “I enthusiastically agree with Senator Mike Lee that all regulatory burdens proposed by executive branch agencies must be approved by Congress as required by Article I of the Constitution: ‘All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress’ actually means ALL ‘legislative powers.’”
“Why would the government want to force people to take this Medicare benefit?” Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and a specialist in internal medicine, tells Breitbart News. “Soon after Medicare was passed, Johnson wanted to force people into Medicare Part A because he wanted his program to succeed and he expected it wouldn’t if people still had the option to purchase private insurance.” 
She continues:

And so Johnson basically talked all the insurance companies into cancelling policies for everybody over the age of 65. People were thus forced into Medicare. The financing of Medicare from the beginning was designed to fail or to be a ponzi scheme. I don’t think they foresaw the dramatic change in the demographics that have occurred, but nevertheless, in the way it was structured, money was never set aside, it was never invested for the people who were putting their money into it. It was always set up to depend upon new taxpayers.
At the time Medicare was signed into law, the average life expectancy was approximately 69 years. Because of advances in medicine, many seniors in 2016 are living well into their 80s and beyond. 
“Longevity has definitely improved and, in addition, the baby boomers didn’t have enough children,” Orient says. “Now we’re down to two or fewer working people supporting each and every retired person. This is a burden the younger generation cannot sustain.”
The idea of opting out of Medicare, however, often raises objections from both those who believe they are entitled to the government-run health care program because they paid taxes into it while they were working, and those who would simply prefer to have the government “take care” of healthcare for them.
Orient says older Americans who believe they are “entitled” to Medicare because they paid into the system aren’t understanding how the ponzi scheme works. In addition, with Medicare about to be even further restricted, current recipients will be in for a rude awakening as soon as next year when the program will feel even more like a burden to be endured.
“People are in denial, particularly about the fiscal realities of Medicare,” she continues. “Bernie Sanders may say that he wants to put everybody in Medicare, and his program has been estimated to cost from anywhere between $2 trillion to $14 trillion. Where is that money going to come from? The fact is it doesn’t exist! It’s hard to believe anyone would have confidence in such a plan.”
Vliet agrees that some are not understanding the realities about Medicare.
“Some people are looking at Medicare as it has been, not as it will be under the new rules, which don’t even really kick in until 2017,” she explains. “When people see that Medicare will be broke and thus will be restricting many more procedures that they may need, as well as hospital readmissions, etc. – and it will get worse when Obamacare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board gets here in 2017 – they will want some other options.”
So make the conscious choice not to be part of the cattle-masses yelling, "Hey, this was promised to me!" while in the remaining human part of your brain you know the program's "sustainability" has long been exhausted.

16 comments:

  1. So the private carriers are going to accept older risks? No, they are not, it's a fool's gambit. In a sense, all insurance, private and social, is a Ponzi scheme. Regardless, show me an insurance risk pool that doesn't rely on the premiums of the young and healthy to pay the claims of the old and unwell? And talk about inflaming class envy, your ilk's claims that the young are paying into a system that will not be there for them are a lie and just that. I'll tell you how to make America great again. We all do our best one day at a time to make it so. That which trickles down from the "successful individualists" (as opposed to the cattle masses you continually claim the bulk of American men and women are these days) is has a warm putrid feeling quite like piss water.

    "Commercial, for-profit health insurance is one of the greatest Ponzi schemes ever foisted on the public," says a family medicine physician. "The executives are the ones that benefit to the detriment of everyone else. How else does the president of one of the largest insurance companies get to be a billionaire? By being at the top of the pyramid of companies' and individuals' premium payments."

    "The single most important factor in the atrociously high cost of healthcare in the United States is the rapacious, money-hungry insurance companies and their fat cat CEOs," comments an MPC contributor.

    "The damage that the insurance companies do is not limited to the salaries of the CEOs," says another contributor. "They waste the time and resources of healthcare workers, institutions, and patients. They are clearly a negative, wasteful element in healthcare today that needs to be heavily regulated, changed, or eliminated."

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/588861

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's a given that we will have a Boomer Prexy for the next 4 years and they will strengthen, not weaken medicare. I'll bet you would just love to pay the premiums you are paying now for the rest of your life wouldn't you? That's a pretty hefty car payment or even a house payment dude. Your man Cruz? Out on his ass, way out. Nobody much cared for him or his ideas. Hence it is understandable you would call them cattle masses.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In a free market, insurance companies would not be able to get away with such uncompetitive behavior. Consumers would quickly gravitate to those offering real value.

    And what is this next prez going to do to "strengthen" Medicare, this program that is already insolvent?

    Also, you may note that Ted was the last Pub standing before S-H hijacked the party. Lots of people understand that his ideas are exactly what would pull us out of our dire state.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm too old to wait around for your free market pie in the sky. Medicare will be fixed. Cruz can read the entire Dr. Suess bibliography until he drops.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And stop calling my parents and grandparents cattle.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You don't think it can or you'd say how. We covered all this in my last post about it: http://barney-quick.blogspot.com/2016/05/medicare-not-set-to-go-kabust-in-future.html

    I don't know your grandparents, but if they got all excited about a government program to help seniors with health care, they were way too willing to depend on an entity (government) that was not designed by the Framers to "provide services."

    ReplyDelete
  7. The choice is binary: economic freedom or tyranny.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It will take some research, of course. As you know the debate has raged on since TR's time. So we've lived in tyranny since then, eh? Gimme a break!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Medicare isn't running out of money... yet

    Having said that, any headlines you see about Medicare being "bankrupt" or anything to that effect are completely overstating the current condition of the hospital insurance program. In fact, after a significant spending deficit from 2008 until 2014, Medicare Hospital Insurance is actually projected to run a surplus through 2023 before returning to deficits.

    This means that the trust fund balance will actually grow for the next few years, although at a slow rate, but the deficits after 2023 are expected to get large pretty quickly, depleting the remaining reserves over a six-year period.

    http://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/06/04/the-most-important-medicare-chart-you-will-ever-se.aspx

    ReplyDelete
  11. Our beloved founders had disagreements over the role of government. They allowed for the process if amendments. What you are now calling tyranny has already been decided to not be tyranny by most reasonable citizens in this government of laws, not men.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Redistribution- forcibly taking one citizen's money to address another citizen's specific situation- is tyranny. And no one involved in framing the Constitution advocated it, most definitely not Mr. Madison

    ReplyDelete
  13. And what's your plan for those defecits that will deplete those reserves?

    ReplyDelete
  14. a recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that 77% of Americans feel that Medicare is "very important" and needs to be preserved.

    The most obvious solution to the problem would be to raise the Medicare portion of the payroll tax, and it's entirely possible that this will happen. After all, Medicare taxes have already been increased in recent years with the 0.9% Medicare tax on high earners and the 3.8% Net Investment Income tax imposed on certain investment income, which is part of the reason Medicare is expected to run a surplus for a few years. However, an across-the-board Medicare tax increase hasn't occurred since 1986, and the demographics have certainly changed since then, so an increase may be necessary.

    In addition to a tax increase, there are a few other potential solutions. Just to name some of the possibilities, we could:

    •Restructure benefits and cost-sharing arrangements
    •Increase the eligibility age -- full retirement age for Social Security is 66 and is about to gradually increase to 67, yet Medicare eligibility begins at 65. Delaying eligibility could result in significant cost savings.

    •Allow the government to negotiate drug prices (this isn't allowed now)

    Something WILL be done. Moo!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Your ilk always claims we can win the wars. Where's your can do attitude when it comes to social INSURANCE, not hand-outs aka entitlements?

    ReplyDelete