Military spending and protecting our borders are constitutional duties of our government.

Tax are up for debate, but it is not the duty of government to burden any citizen with excessive taxes. And yes, I believe all levels of federal taxes are too high.

 

I'm all for military spending. But controlled. I would add to how many businesses are propped up by the spending?

What are you personal thoughts on healthcare coverage for Americans? What role do you think the government should play in that (if any), and how can we truly make healthcare more affordable to more people without crippling the basic, capitalistic, free enterprise system that makes this the greatest country in the world?

 

Back to the original post as it deals with the role of government.

 

The simple answer to the bolded above is - yes, the government (federal and state) currently do, and without radical changes - that are not even on the table - will continue to play a role in the 'medical care market'.

 

Medicare and Medicaid are established programs that are now embedded in our entire society. Ask anyone over 65 (Medicare), or who is low-income and has high medical costs (Medicaid). And look your paycheck and see that deduction the comes out each month (with no cap or limit). Also remember, if you are contractor or individual worker you pay the 'employer' half that is hidden from most people (a neat little trick to hide the true tax amount).

 

One of the most serious challenges in these programs is this - they are underfunded - way underfunded.

 

These programs, along with interest on the debt absolutely dominate future federal budget spending. This is show in this chart:

 

 

Source (2010 data but overall still accurate):

 

U.S. Budget and Economy: The Long-Run Budget Outlook (211 Budget)

 

The 2.9% tax we all pay on earned income (working wages) simply does not and can not cover the projected rise. Salaries of workers is not going to rise enough to cover it. Kids coming out of college today basically make similar salaries to what they were in the late 1980s. Wages are not rising to keep up with the demand - especially as the boomers move onto Medicare when they turn 65.

 

The fact that Medicare/Medicaid are underfunded is basically ignored since, unlike social security, these programs on 'on-budget' and part of the general federal budget. Receipts have lagged outlays for years - and its getting worse and it was accelerated with ACA. See chart here:

 

 

As it stands currently - Medicare/medicare are funded by a) reducing other federal programs (mainly military since it is the largest discretionary bucket) and b) federal government borrowing (debt). People rail about military spending for one reason - its the only bucket where meaningful dollars can be transferred to HHS. But even if military spending was substanciall reduced and those general tax dollars were completely reallocated to HHS the gap in receipts and spending would not close to any significant degree.

 

So that leaves the funding of HHS (Medicare/Medicaid) to done via only other route - borrowing and increased federal debt. That, in turn, drives interest payments (mandatory, non-discretionary by law) that go to the (private bank) Federal Reserve and other buyers (China, etc.) of US bonds. See the first chart - this interest on debt is a serious, serious issue in future years.

 

In short - Medicare/Medicaid receipt and outlay differences are THE absolute driver to the current and future federal budget crisis that is continually being ignored by all involved. It already is at a crisis level and is getting worse. It is unsustainable.

 

What to do? That is multi-trillion (yes trillion with a 't') question!

 

These programs are already embedded in our society. They are not going away. Like social security there is now an 'agreement across generations'. Everyone over 65 is already part of government managed health care.

 

One step seems clear - raise the Medicare tax rate - now. It was already under water before ACA - so this is not a direct slam on ACA. But ACA did accelerate the issue. Raising the tax would not be a fix - it would only help the current gap.

 

This still does not address what or how government can or should do in a broader sense. Government can do things private companies can not. Mainly government can (as it already is via these programs) be the 'insurer of last resort'. This is already the role Medicaid seems to play for those under 65 and who are poor. Government can legally take on risk that private companies are legally not allowed to. Remember the $1M limit on policies. Its the law. To not have a limit on policies would create the legal situation of 'unlimited' (or unmeasurable) liability. This directly runs afoul of Sarbanes-Oxley. The limit has nothing to do with companies greed - its the law as mandated by the government. Companies regularly go over this limit but only after quatifying the costs. So the political clamer about greedy companies is just hollow on this subject. The insurance companies are losing money big right now. That comes from an insider who works with them daily. It is already a crisis.

 

Sorry for another long winded post. Good subject here. I do not know if the current bills really are any good. Have not had time to research. Creating another bad health care bill is the last thing we need. But the crisis is hear and the can can not be kicked down the road much longer!

Back to the original post as it deals with the role of government.

 

The simple answer to the bolded above is - yes, the government (federal and state) currently do, and without radical changes - that are not even on the table - will continue to play a role in the 'medical care market'.

 

Medicare and Medicaid are established programs that are now embedded in our entire society. Ask anyone over 65 (Medicare), or who is low-income and has high medical costs (Medicaid). And look your paycheck and see that deduction the comes out each month (with no cap or limit). Also remember, if you are contractor or individual worker you pay the 'employer' half that is hidden from most people (a neat little trick to hide the true tax amount).

 

One of the most serious challenges in these programs is this - they are underfunded - way underfunded.

 

These programs, along with interest on the debt absolutely dominate future federal budget spending. This is show in this chart:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]62528[/ATTACH]

 

Source (2010 data but overall still accurate):

 

U.S. Budget and Economy: The Long-Run Budget Outlook (211 Budget)

 

The 2.9% tax we all pay on earned income (working wages) simply does not and can not cover the projected rise. Salaries of workers is not going to rise enough to cover it. Kids coming out of college today basically make similar salaries to what they were in the late 1980s. Wages are not rising to keep up with the demand - especially as the boomers move onto Medicare when they turn 65.

 

The fact that Medicare/Medicaid are underfunded is basically ignored since, unlike social security, these programs on 'on-budget' and part of the general federal budget. Receipts have lagged outlays for years - and its getting worse and it was accelerated with ACA. See chart here:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]62529[/ATTACH]

 

As it stands currently - Medicare/medicare are funded by a) reducing other federal programs (mainly military since it is the largest discretionary bucket) and b) federal government borrowing (debt). People rail about military spending for one reason - its the only bucket where meaningful dollars can be transferred to HHS. But even if military spending was substanciall reduced and those general tax dollars were completely reallocated to HHS the gap in receipts and spending would not close to any significant degree.

 

So that leaves the funding of HHS (Medicare/Medicaid) to done via only other route - borrowing and increased federal debt. That, in turn, drives interest payments (mandatory, non-discretionary by law) that go to the (private bank) Federal Reserve and other buyers (China, etc.) of US bonds. See the first chart - this interest on debt is a serious, serious issue in future years.

 

In short - Medicare/Medicaid receipt and outlay differences are THE absolute driver to the current and future federal budget crisis that is continually being ignored by all involved. It already is at a crisis level and is getting worse. It is unsustainable.

 

What to do? That is multi-trillion (yes trillion with a 't') question!

 

These programs are already embedded in our society. They are not going away. Like social security there is now an 'agreement across generations'. Everyone over 65 is already part of government managed health care.

 

One step seems clear - raise the Medicare tax rate - now. It was already under water before ACA - so this is not a direct slam on ACA. But ACA did accelerate the issue. Raising the tax would not be a fix - it would only help the current gap.

 

This still does not address what or how government can or should do in a broader sense. Government can do things private companies can not. Mainly government can (as it already is via these programs) be the 'insurer of last resort'. This is already the role Medicaid seems to play for those under 65 and who are poor. Government can legally take on risk that private companies are legally not allowed to. Remember the $1M limit on policies. Its the law. To not have a limit on policies would create the legal situation of 'unlimited' (or unmeasurable) liability. This directly runs afoul of Sarbanes-Oxley. The limit has nothing to do with companies greed - its the law as mandated by the government. Companies regularly go over this limit but only after quatifying the costs. So the political clamer about greedy companies is just hollow on this subject. The insurance companies are losing money big right now. That comes from an insider who works with them daily. It is already a crisis.

 

Sorry for another long winded post. Good subject here. I do not know if the current bills really are any good. Have not had time to research. Creating another bad health care bill is the last thing we need. But the crisis is hear and the can can not be kicked down the road much longer!

 

I recently read that while unemployment is low, salaries are pretty much stagnant. Very little growth.

Get rid of insurance period, everyone pay for what they use, just like any other service.

 

Extend the HSA rules to allow for a bigger input amount each year that can be used tax free for qualified health care. If amount in account is not used at by death, then tax it if you want when it is inherited over.

I recently read that while unemployment is low, salaries are pretty much stagnant. Very little growth.

 

That certainly seems accurate. I came out of school in 1985 with a masters and started at $33,000 a year. Bachelors in the same field (IT) started at $32,000 at the same company. It seems anything around $40,000 a year is considered very good for most grads in today's market and many are not getting that. Unfortunately, wages have not kept up with inflation at all it seems.

 

Programs such as social security and Medicare/medicaid were probably premised on salaries increasing at least near the rate of inflation.

Back to the original post as it deals with the role of government.

 

The simple answer to the bolded above is - yes, the government (federal and state) currently do, and without radical changes - that are not even on the table - will continue to play a role in the 'medical care market'.

 

Medicare and Medicaid are established programs that are now embedded in our entire society. Ask anyone over 65 (Medicare), or who is low-income and has high medical costs (Medicaid). And look your paycheck and see that deduction the comes out each month (with no cap or limit). Also remember, if you are contractor or individual worker you pay the 'employer' half that is hidden from most people (a neat little trick to hide the true tax amount).

 

One of the most serious challenges in these programs is this - they are underfunded - way underfunded.

 

These programs, along with interest on the debt absolutely dominate future federal budget spending. This is show in this chart:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]62528[/ATTACH]

 

Source (2010 data but overall still accurate):

 

U.S. Budget and Economy: The Long-Run Budget Outlook (211 Budget)

 

The 2.9% tax we all pay on earned income (working wages) simply does not and can not cover the projected rise. Salaries of workers is not going to rise enough to cover it. Kids coming out of college today basically make similar salaries to what they were in the late 1980s. Wages are not rising to keep up with the demand - especially as the boomers move onto Medicare when they turn 65.

 

The fact that Medicare/Medicaid are underfunded is basically ignored since, unlike social security, these programs on 'on-budget' and part of the general federal budget. Receipts have lagged outlays for years - and its getting worse and it was accelerated with ACA. See chart here:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]62529[/ATTACH]

 

As it stands currently - Medicare/medicare are funded by a) reducing other federal programs (mainly military since it is the largest discretionary bucket) and b) federal government borrowing (debt). People rail about military spending for one reason - its the only bucket where meaningful dollars can be transferred to HHS. But even if military spending was substanciall reduced and those general tax dollars were completely reallocated to HHS the gap in receipts and spending would not close to any significant degree.

 

So that leaves the funding of HHS (Medicare/Medicaid) to done via only other route - borrowing and increased federal debt. That, in turn, drives interest payments (mandatory, non-discretionary by law) that go to the (private bank) Federal Reserve and other buyers (China, etc.) of US bonds. See the first chart - this interest on debt is a serious, serious issue in future years.

 

In short - Medicare/Medicaid receipt and outlay differences are THE absolute driver to the current and future federal budget crisis that is continually being ignored by all involved. It already is at a crisis level and is getting worse. It is unsustainable.

 

What to do? That is multi-trillion (yes trillion with a 't') question!

 

These programs are already embedded in our society. They are not going away. Like social security there is now an 'agreement across generations'. Everyone over 65 is already part of government managed health care.

 

One step seems clear - raise the Medicare tax rate - now. It was already under water before ACA - so this is not a direct slam on ACA. But ACA did accelerate the issue. Raising the tax would not be a fix - it would only help the current gap.

 

This still does not address what or how government can or should do in a broader sense. Government can do things private companies can not. Mainly government can (as it already is via these programs) be the 'insurer of last resort'. This is already the role Medicaid seems to play for those under 65 and who are poor. Government can legally take on risk that private companies are legally not allowed to. Remember the $1M limit on policies. Its the law. To not have a limit on policies would create the legal situation of 'unlimited' (or unmeasurable) liability. This directly runs afoul of Sarbanes-Oxley. The limit has nothing to do with companies greed - its the law as mandated by the government. Companies regularly go over this limit but only after quatifying the costs. So the political clamer about greedy companies is just hollow on this subject. The insurance companies are losing money big right now. That comes from an insider who works with them daily. It is already a crisis.

 

Sorry for another long winded post. Good subject here. I do not know if the current bills really are any good. Have not had time to research. Creating another bad health care bill is the last thing we need. But the crisis is hear and the can can not be kicked down the road much longer!

Thanks for taking the time to post this. I think the choice is rather clear. But people don't want to face facts. Medicare has to be cut in some way, the age raised, etc. People are living longer and thus staying on government benefits longer. I can't stand the fact that money comes out of my paycheck that I will NEVER see. This drives me nuts. I think the next healthcare bill should focus more on making sure insurance can be found cheaper in the private marketplace instead of taking the easy way out and saying the government will take care of you. Anyone that says insurance companies are greedy just doesnt understand how it works. All of these companies are paying BILLIONS of dollars every year on consumer research that determine the rates people are charged. But if the government could help with reinsurance if could help lower premiums. Instead of government funded healthcare in general. I think setting requirements for healthcare if you choose to buy it should have something in place like the FAIR plan that requires access to insurance even for people who are uninsurable. That way everyone can get insurance but it reduces the risk of individual companies.

Get rid of insurance period, everyone pay for what they use, just like any other service.

 

Extend the HSA rules to allow for a bigger input amount each year that can be used tax free for qualified health care. If amount in account is not used at by death, then tax it if you want when it is inherited over.

Nobody would ever buy a new car, nobody would ever get a loan, everyone would live in apartments. This is what you want?

I recently read that while unemployment is low, salaries are pretty much stagnant. Very little growth.

Some money is better than no money. Cut regulations and that money will be transferred to employees.

Nobody would ever buy a new car, nobody would ever get a loan, everyone would live in apartments. This is what you want?

 

What does that have to do with health insurance?

What does that have to do with health insurance?

You said insurance period. Didn't specify health insurance. Either way hope you don't have a major health issue in the future. Do you have an extra $60,000 lying around to have a major surgery?

Some money is better than no money. Cut regulations and that money will be transferred to employees.

 

Or will it stay with the management and owners?

You said insurance period. Didn't specify health insurance. Either way hope you don't have a major health issue in the future. Do you have an extra $60,000 lying around to have a major surgery?

 

The thread is about healthcare not cars and homes, (thought that was pretty obvious.)

 

Major surgery wont be 60K when you get insurance out of the way, cut out insurance, cut out the insurance regulation, cut the cost in half minimum, probably closer to 2/3rds.

 

Major surgery wont be 60K when you get insurance out of the way, cut out insurance, cut out the insurance regulation, cut the cost in half minimum, probably closer to 2/3rds.

 

I don't believe this is true.

 

It's definitely cheaper if you take insurance companies out of it, but it's not by 50%.

You said insurance period. Didn't specify health insurance. Either way hope you don't have a major health issue in the future. Do you have an extra $60,000 lying around to have a major surgery?

 

Or six figures, like my relatively recent 2-week stay at the Christ Hospital and Spa cost? Or will some deregulation make that sort of thing nothing more expensive than a used car?

Or will it stay with the management and owners?

If it does they are horrible business people.