I don't defend any of that except that SS has taken from working people their entire lives and they should get some return on it. If we could end it tomorrow and have a blanket payout to every person of exactly what they've contributed I'd be elated.

 

I'm not sure what insurance payments and Medicare payouts have to do with each other?

You said that their was a disproportionate amount of reimbursement from the private sector making the medicare payments unsustainable. My question was more of a theoretical one. I.E. if there was no insurance market dolling out payments and it was all medicare or something similar would the payments for doctors go up? I might not have understood what you said so please correct me. 

---

It will never cease to astound me how conservatives vilify the poor for "being on the dole" and in the same breath defend the elderly on medicare, SS or w/e. Might be the first time I've heard someone refer to it the same way as they would the poor, most likely because the elderly is the conservative base.

 

One has to wonder that if the private insurance industry was not the primary source of funds for doctors etc... Would medicare be able to cover doctors more sufficiently?

 

I'm not a fan of Social Security myself to be honest.  I don't think we should really abolish it so much as replace it with something much better.  The system we currently have just doesn't work.  A lot of people pay into it, and then get nothing out of it when they need it.  I'm not for privatizing it, but it needs to be a better system.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

You said that their was a disproportionate amount of reimbursement from the private sector making the medicare payments unsustainable. My question was more of a theoretical one. I.E. if there was no insurance market dolling out payments and it was all medicare or something similar would the payments for doctors go up? I might not have understood what you said so please correct me. 

 

I don't think that eliminating one revenue source would somehow increase a different one.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'm not a fan of Social Security myself to be honest.  I don't think we should really abolish it so much as replace it with something much better.  The system we currently have just doesn't work.  A lot of people pay into it, and then get nothing out of it when they need it.  I'm not for privatizing it, but it needs to be a better system.  

Agreed with you both on that. 

---

You said that their was a disproportionate amount of reimbursement from the private sector making the medicare payments unsustainable. My question was more of a theoretical one. I.E. if there was no insurance market dolling out payments and it was all medicare or something similar would the payments for doctors go up? I might not have understood what you said so please correct me.

You're on to something, B.


From what I've seen, doctors and smaller clinics are still able to practice even with a large portion of patients on Medicare.


The issue is a lot of people confuse Medicaid with Medicare. Medicaid gets a lot less funding, federally...


Also, one must remember that hospitals treat a lot of folks that have no insurance which hurts the bottom line.


Cutting out private insurers would not have the adverse effect on health care as some may argue.


Like I said, I've seen the books of private practitioners and small clinics who deal with Medicare patients, and Medicaid patients for that matter.


From my experience of what I've seen, they are running in the black, comfortably.

---

I'm not a fan of Social Security myself to be honest.  I don't think we should really abolish it so much as replace it with something much better.  The system we currently have just doesn't work.  A lot of people pay into it, and then get nothing out of it when they need it.  I'm not for privatizing it, but it needs to be a better system.  

 

The problem is, many people don't really understand how Social Security actually works.  In general terms, you don't pay into it then get a return out of it when you retire.  It's not a retirement savings plan at all.  When you pay into it, those monies are supposed to fund the outgoing payments.  What ended up happening though, is Social Security started having an "excess" of available funds that our dear government decided that they could put to use elsewhere, so they started "borrowing" money from the Social Security fund.  Combine that with the fact that people are living longer, thus they draw more than what was expected.  As it currently stands, there are really no funds in the "Social Security Account", only a bunch of worthless IOU's from our government.

 

Another problem is many believe that Social Security is supposed to fund their retirement.  This was NEVER the intent.  It was meant to be a supplement to retirement savings/pensions.  However, many people expect to be able to live comfortably on Social Security alone.

 

President Bush's administration had come up with a plan that would have been much better.  What it would have done is set up personal accounts per individual that would be invested in conservative funds.  Take a look at your pay stub, and note how much tax you pay every pay period for Social Security.  Imagine if it went into an interest-bearing account in your name.  Even if the rate of return was low, over time it would grow.  When you reach retirement age, you could start drawing money off of the balance as you see fit.  You would be able to name a beneficiary so should you die, those funds would be transferred to them, so you could leave that little nest egg to your spouse, children or whomever you choose.  With a system like that, you would have more money available at retirement than you get from the current system, and it leaves government out of the equation.

 

This was shut down more-or-less because it wasn't "fair".  People that actually earned more would have more at retirement (imagine that).

 

This is just an "in a nutshell" explanation of the overall thing.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The problem is, many people don't really understand how Social Security actually works.  In general terms, you don't pay into it then get a return out of it when you retire.  It's not a retirement savings plan at all.  When you pay into it, those monies are supposed to fund the outgoing payments.  What ended up happening though, is Social Security started having an "excess" of available funds that our dear government decided that they could put to use elsewhere, so they started "borrowing" money from the Social Security fund.  Combine that with the fact that people are living longer, thus they draw more than what was expected.  As it currently stands, there are really no funds in the "Social Security Account", only a bunch of worthless IOU's from our government.

 

Another problem is many believe that Social Security is supposed to fund their retirement.  This was NEVER the intent.  It was meant to be a supplement to retirement savings/pensions.  However, many people expect to be able to live comfortably on Social Security alone.

 

President Bush's administration had come up with a plan that would have been much better.  What it would have done is set up personal accounts per individual that would be invested in conservative funds.  Take a look at your pay stub, and note how much tax you pay every pay period for Social Security.  Imagine if it went into an interest-bearing account in your name.  Even if the rate of return was low, over time it would grow.  When you reach retirement age, you could start drawing money off of the balance as you see fit.  You would be able to name a beneficiary so should you die, those funds would be transferred to them, so you could leave that little nest egg to your spouse, children or whomever you choose.  With a system like that, you would have more money available at retirement than you get from the current system, and it leaves government out of the equation.

 

This was shut down more-or-less because it wasn't "fair".  People that actually earned more would have more at retirement (imagine that).

 

This is just an "in a nutshell" explanation of the overall thing.

Out of curiosity, how does SS pay out now? Is it a flat sum for every individual or is it different based on certain criteria or metrics?

---

No, the type of work I do has given me instances where I've seen the books of doctors and health care clinics. Medicare as an insurer seems to be viable for the elderly, and is viable financially to the providers of health care. Why not expand it?


Anecdotally, my dad is old enough to qualify. He is still very active, and last year he tweaked his knee. He had surgery on it, and is now back up and active.


I'm sure there are stories of horror, just like in anything that serves the public. But I wonder, if Medicare was so bad, why did Bush's push to privatize it in his second term get blown out of the water by seniors?

 

In other words, let's raise taxes some more.     Where do you think that the funds for medicare comes from?

 

The problem is, many people don't really grasp the idea of what insurance is for.  It is NOT supposed to be there to pay for "routine" health care.  It is supposed to be there to cover you in the case of an emergency or unexpected condition.

 

Think of it this way.  Is your homeowner's insurance supposed to pay for a plumber to come and fix your leaky faucet?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Out of curiosity, how does SS pay out now? Is it a flat sum for every individual or is it different based on certain criteria or metrics?

 

IIRC, it's a complicated formula that is capped at a certain amount based on how long/how much that you have paid into the system, as well as your age and the age that you start drawing it.  As an example, if you were born after 1960 and you retire at 62 1/2, you can draw Social Security, but it's only 70% of the "max amount" that could be available to you.  Say you wait until you are 65 to start drawing Social Security.  You would then draw a higher percentage (86.7%) that you qualify for.  In order to draw the maximum amount, you have to wait until you reach 67.  Think about that and let it sink in.  Working until you are 67 years old.

 

EDIT:

My numbers may not be entirely accurate, but this website lists the figures for someone retiring this year.  If you are at full retirement age you would get $2,663 per month.  If you wait until you are 70, then you would get $3,501 per month (before taxes).

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

In other words, let's raise taxes some more.     Where do you think that the funds for medicare comes from?

 

The problem is, many people don't really grasp the idea of what insurance is for.  It is NOT supposed to be there to pay for "routine" health care.  It is supposed to be there to cover you in the case of an emergency or unexpected condition.

 

Think of it this way.  Is your homeowner's insurance supposed to pay for a plumber to come and fix your leaky faucet?

I think here in lies the fundamental difference between the two views on healthcare. I think all healthcare should be treated the same way and not broken in varying degrees of importance. 

---

In other words, let's raise taxes some more. Where do you think that the funds for medicare comes from?


The problem is, many people don't really grasp the idea of what insurance is for. It is NOT supposed to be there to pay for "routine" health care. It is supposed to be there to cover you in the case of an emergency or unexpected condition.


Think of it this way. Is your homeowner's insurance supposed to pay for a plumber to come and fix your leaky faucet?

Only problem is the cost of routine healthcare has outpaced what even modest incomes can keep up with, that's in large because of inflated insurance payments.


The whole system is to big seems to be a theme with the problems we have today

---

I think here in lies the fundamental difference between the two views on healthcare. I think all healthcare should be treated the same way and not broken in varying degrees of importance. 

 

It all boils down to someone else paying for it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It all boils down to someone else paying for it.

Or, since we're all citizens, we're all paying for it. You know from our taxes and for the greater good...

---

It all boils down to someone else paying for it.

You pay for insurance now. If that was converted to a tax, is that someone else paying for it? Not really but the point is there are plenty of ways to do this even for the people who don't care about anyone but themselves. 

---

I think here in lies the fundamental difference between the two views on healthcare. I think all healthcare should be treated the same way and not broken in varying degrees of importance. 

 

Why should it all be treated the same way?  Let's take an analogy regarding vehicles and car insurance.  Since you have to have car insurance, should the insurance cover an oil change?  Or should the cost of an oil change fall on the owner of the car?

 

It's the same way with health insurance.  Should health insurance pay for a routine physical (it cost me about $65 last time I had one) or should a person have to pay for that routine care on their own?  Now let's say (deity forbid) that said routine physical found a problem that required an extensive hospital stay or more extensive treatment that is out of my reach financially, then that's where insurance comes into play.

 

In other words, people have been "trained" to think of "health care coverage" to equal it paying for anything and everything.  "Insurance" is in place to cover a catastrophic situation.  It is not intended to cover basic "needs" such as birth control or doctor visits.

 

Think about that for a bit, then think about why prices have gone up.

 

Only problem is the cost of routine healthcare has outpaced what even modest incomes can keep up with, that's in large because of inflated insurance payments.


The whole system is to big seems to be a theme with the problems we have today

 

Refer to my above answer to boudreaumw.  Why exactly do you think that the cost of routine healthcare has gone up?  Have you gone to a doctor's office and told them that you are willing to pay cash rather than use "insurance"?  I'll guarantee you that the price is a lot lower for a procedure than if you were going to use your "insurance".

 

It's because people think that "insurance" is there to pay their bill for them.  The price is higher if you use "insurance" because of the paperwork, the bureaucracy and the red-tape that these doctor's offices have to go through with insurance companies in order to get paid.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Or, since we're all citizens, we're all paying for it. You know from our taxes and for the greater good...

I don't want to pay for military for your protection or your garbage pickup you lazy moocher. 

---

Why should it all be treated the same way?  Let's take an analogy regarding vehicles and car insurance.  Since you have to have car insurance, should the insurance cover an oil change?  Or should the cost of an oil change fall on the owner of the car?

 

It's the same way with health insurance.  Should health insurance pay for a routine physical (it cost me about $65 last time I had one) or should a person have to pay for that routine care on their own?  Now let's say (deity forbid) that said routine physical found a problem that required an extensive hospital stay or more extensive treatment that is out of my reach financially, then that's where insurance comes into play.

 

In other words, people have been "trained" to think of "health care coverage" to equal it paying for anything and everything.  "Insurance" is in place to cover a catastrophic situation.  It is not intended to cover basic "needs" such as birth control or doctor visits.

 

Think about that for a bit, then think about why prices have gone up.

 

 

Refer to my above answer to boudreaumw.  Why exactly do you think that the cost of routine healthcare has gone up?  Have you gone to a doctor's office and told them that you are willing to pay cash rather than use "insurance"?  I'll guarantee you that the price is a lot lower for a procedure than if you were going to use your "insurance".

 

It's because people think that "insurance" is there to pay their bill for them.  The price is higher if you use "insurance" because of the paperwork, the bureaucracy and the red-tape that these doctor's offices have to go through with insurance companies in order to get paid.

I would counter that with you have been trained to think of healthcare as a privilege as most people have. More people in America are able to afford this privilege than say in the middle ages when only the wealthiest had reasonable healthcare. I argue it's not a privilege but a right that any modern society could provide. 

 

I think at least it sounds like we agree that insurance is the big problem. At least I think that's the case. I offer to pay cash every time I go my visits are never cheaper that way at least not at my last two doctors. 

---

Or, since we're all citizens, we're all paying for it. You know from our taxes and for the greater good...

 

This reminds me of a quote.  "From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs".  Hmm... I wonder where that came from.  I wonder how well that concept has worked out?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Yes you can go to visit a doctor and pay cash for a quick look, blood pressure and temp check. After that the prices accelerate at an unrealistic rate. To use your example it would be like coming in for an oil change which is reasonable at $30 but then if you need an air filter that's another $400 if you need a fluid exchange that $600 and so on, you'd suddenly have a market for service warranties which is basically insurance paying for maintenance.


The problem is the cost it's out paced the market but that's natural when a market is subsidized regardless if it's insurance companies or government subsidies. When the markets ability to control cost is removed the entire system is unsustainable.

---

I would counter that with you have been trained to think of healthcare as a privilege as most people have. More people in America are able to afford this privilege than say in the middle ages when only the wealthiest had reasonable healthcare. I argue it's not a privilege but a right that any modern society could provide. 

 

I think at least it sounds like we agree that insurance is the big problem. At least I think that's the case. I offer to pay cash every time I go my visits are never cheaper that way at least not at my last two doctors. 

 

Reminds me of the old meme:


If you commit a crime, you have a right to a lawyer, if you can't afford a lawyer one will be appointed to you.

If you get sick, you have a right to treatment.  If you can't afford treatment, tough [BAD WORD REMOVED] Bro

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke.