TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

How can we admit Medicare will go broke if we don't change it but not want to change it? How is this logical? How is this an accepted view?

Much of today's debate in washington surrounds the future of Medicare. Should we cut it, should we go to a vouchure system etc? But the counter viewpoint is not a counter viewpoint at all. Its nothing, the proposal to leave it alone while acknowledging its ultimate failure is idiotic at best. With all of the smart logical people that stop by and read these questions. Isn't there an answer here? I'd love to hear views of those supporting leaving the system as is and understand how they feel its a view worth listening to. I'd love to hear ideas about how to cut costs while maintaining benefits. are we simply dolts to sit here and listen to our leaders tell us Medicare can be affective if we add 40 million people into a healthcare sytem while while cutting 500 billion in reimbursement to providers? Hospitals are cutting staff all over the country, closing wings, Skilled Nursing facilities are dying becuase of their reimbursement cuts, ambulance serives, physical theropy, etc. all have taken huge reimbursement cuts while being expected to process patients at below their actual costs? who but an elected official would propose a system will improve when adding 40 million patients into an already over crowded and burdened system while cutting reimbursements?

Share:
  • thumb
    May 28 2011: Tim........Agreed but wiith one addition..........ferret out the scammers that cost the program billions. Personally, I use a c-pap and every 6 months I have to buy 350.00 of mask, headgear and hose and filters.
    I actually only need the replaceable soft plastic parts which are replaceable, but no......the Medicare program mandates that you can buy it only in the complete package. Why ? Because some manufacturer convined somebody that it should be one unit. ?
  • thumb
    May 27 2011: Any debate over health care has to begin with the recognition of a basic fact - any amount of money can be spent on health care, therefore some form of "rationing" must be implemented. It is irrational to think that everyone can get the best level of healthcare available in every situation.

    Medicare has been very effective at getting the most for the least. Overhead compared to private insurance is much lower. Service per dollar input is the best.

    The debate should be over:
    . how much are we willing to put into Medicare?
    . how can we make those dollars the most effective?
    . how can we expand this program to the most people?

    Anyone disagree?