PDA

View Full Version : LATimes: Medicare eight years from insolvency



Winehole23
05-12-2009, 06:00 PM
Report: Medicare fund eight years from insolvency (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-medicare13-2009may13,0,1363760.story)



The trustees' prediction is the bleakest assessment in years for the nation's health plan, which will soon face further pressures as baby boomers enter the system.
By Noam N. Levey
May 13, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- Underscoring the urgency of the current push in Washington to rein in skyrocketing healthcare costs, Medicare's trustees warned today that the program's biggest fund would run out of money in just eight years.

The prediction -- issued in an annual report on Medicare and Social Security finances -- offered the bleakest assessment of Medicare's future in years and reflects growing concerns among policy experts that the nation's healthcare spending is unsustainable.



"The Medicare trustees report makes clear that today there is no more important long-term fiscal policy measure than gaining control of the growth of Medicare costs by delivering healthcare services more efficiently," said Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. His comment echoed calls that federal officials from both parties have been making for decades.

Medicare, now in its fifth decade, provides health insurance to about 45 million mostly senior citizens.

But the impending eligibility of baby boomers, who are projected to start joining Medicare in 2011, and the unrelenting rise in healthcare costs have heightened concerns in recent years about the program's long-term viability.


The current economic downturn, which has resulted in the elimination of millions of jobs, has further eroded Medicare.

Social Security and Medicare are financed primarily by taxes evenly divided between workers and employers that amount to 15.3% of wages.

The Social Security trust fund, however, is not expected to run out of money until 2037, according to the trustees' report.

Today, those pushing to overhaul the nation's healthcare system, including senior administration officials, pointed to the Medicare news to redouble their argument.

AARP Executive Vice President John Rother called the report a "clarion call for health care reform."

President Obama and groups such as the AARP are pushing for cuts in how much the federal government pays private insurers who contract to provide Medicare insurance for seniors. They are also pushing for faster approval of generic drugs. Both steps challenge major healthcare industries.

The president and his allies on Capitol Hill also are exploring broader changes in the way that Medicare pays for services, including new penalties on hospitals and doctors who don't meet new quality standards.

Marcus Bryant
05-12-2009, 06:42 PM
Benefits won't be cut. We could never contemplate cutting payments to otherwise comfortable retirees so that working class families could at least not see a hike in their payroll taxes.

Winehole23
05-12-2009, 06:51 PM
I don't think it'll be avoidable, in the 2012 term at least.

Marcus Bryant
05-12-2009, 06:54 PM
Why isn't the obvious path of compromise taken? That is, social insurance payments for those who truly need it? The rationale of those programs was that all retirees would be guaranteed some standard of living in retirement. Despite my ideology, I wouldn't lose much sleep over such an arrangement.

Winehole23
05-12-2009, 07:09 PM
Means testing is a dirty word now, but it may not be avoidable, and like you say, it appeals to common sense.

Wild Cobra
05-12-2009, 09:23 PM
Means testing is a dirty word now, but it may not be avoidable, and like you say, it appeals to common sense.
Means testing isn't fair to those who paid and did well for themselves. This is just another government fuck up. Made worse by the current spending increases on social programs by this administration.

You see, both SS and Medicare pay for themselves. The government uses the excess for the regular expenditures as well. For it to go bust by then, that means the government plans to default on paying the (laughable) trust funds back.

Winehole23
05-12-2009, 09:53 PM
Means testing isn't fair to those who paid and did well for themselves. This is just another government fuck up. Made worse by the current spending increases on social programs by this administration.Alright, hang onto your bennies, gravy train.


You see, both SS and Medicare pay for themselves. The government uses the excess for the regular expenditures as well. For it to go bust by then, that means the government plans to default on paying the (laughable) trust funds back.No shit. Was there ever any doubt about this? The lockbox thing didn't work. I don't think anyone was ever under the impression we were planning to pay the funds back.

Marcus Bryant
05-12-2009, 10:35 PM
Means testing isn't fair to those who paid and did well for themselves. This is just another government fuck up. Made worse by the current spending increases on social programs by this administration.

Those were taxes, not "contributions." They were so labeled to hoodwink the gullible into thinking it was something other than tax and spend welfare.




You see, both SS and Medicare pay for themselves. The government uses the excess for the regular expenditures as well. For it to go bust by then, that means the government plans to default on paying the (laughable) trust funds back.

Soon one of those won't be paying for itself and the other will follow quickly thereafter. I guess we're now selective on what government largesse we criticize.

Wild Cobra
05-12-2009, 11:16 PM
No shit. Was there ever any doubt about this? The lockbox thing didn't work. I don't think anyone was ever under the impression we were planning to pay the funds back.
No doubt in my mind. Anyone watching knew this would happen long ago.

Wild Cobra
05-12-2009, 11:20 PM
Those were taxes, not "contributions." They were so labeled to hoodwink the gullible into thinking it was something other than tax and spend welfare.

I know that, but the system was marketed as insurance. How do you feel about the ex-post-facto law clause? Shouldn't this be for us when we retire because it would change the law when we entered?


Soon one of those won't be paying for itself and the other will follow quickly thereafter. I guess we're now selective on what government largesse we criticize.

It's a third rail. Anytime someone tries to fix it, they get the shock of their lives on how they get criticized. Look what happened when president Bush tried to fix the SS system.

Winehole23
05-13-2009, 12:51 AM
[Rationing benefits] is a dirty word now, but it may not be avoidable, and like you say, it appeals to common sense.

Winehole23
05-13-2009, 08:35 AM
No maybe about that, 4cc.