Posted on 06/11/2011 7:26:13 AM PDT by Notary Sojac
We paid for our own doctor visits, children's doc visits and immunizations, prescriptions, etc. There was insurance that covered hospital and doctors while an inpatient.
Malpractice suits were virtuallly unheard of so doctor's didn't have to 1. insure themselves for it, nor 2. order every doggone test known to mankind to defend their decision.
There were clinics for those unable to pay for private care.
BUT, that was also a time that most families were headed by two married people which cut down the burden of caring for the "poor".
That is where we need to go. Medical care is not a right.
Is your position then that parents who can no longer work should be supported by their children or take their chances on someone's charity? That was probably the case before SS systems and parent had to live with their children until they died. Families had more children then. Today there are fewer children. I hope your two children will be able to take care of you and your wife using whatever assets you will have acquired. But you got to realize that a lot of children would prefer to rely on a government insurance system to take care of their parents, as would a lot of parents who would not want to impose on their children. Uncontrollable medical costs is a major problem in saving for the future.
That battle was lost long ago! We’re in “damage control” mode now. There’s no constitutional justification for most of what the government does, and hasn’t been for nearly 80 years.
If they fix it by making it self-sustaining, maybe this “entitlement” won’t sink the ship.
There will be rationing of care. The only question is who will do it, the government or the patient.
By law, 75% of the costs for Medicare Parts B and D come from the general fund. Premiums from the recipients only cover 25% of the costs.
It is also worth remembering that nine out of ten Medicare recipients have some form of supplementary private insurance to cover costs Medicare doesn't.
I always thought that Social Security and Medicare were simply vote-buying schemes perpetrated by liberals as opposed to programs which were generally intended to replace charity or family-provided care.
But as for taking care of elderly parents, back in those days most people did not live to be terribly old (65 was considered old age) and the concept of retirement as we know it also was not prevalent. People generally worked until they died.
Today there are fewer children.
Not exactly. There are fewer children from families which are made to pay this country's bills. Most of these people limit themselves to a certain number of children because they simply cannot afford to pay for more of them. The fact that most of us are taxed out the rear end to pay for all of the parasites doesn't help. On the other hand, for the people who leech off the system, the number of spawn they create is quite high.
My employers gave health benefits as part of my salary. Not sure before 65.
We married in 65, my husband was making 30.00 a week with BCBS insurance that paid everything for 2 births and a couple more surgeries. 13.00 a week for a furnished 2 room apt., bills paid and 10.00 for groceries. We did just fine.
If we hadn’t had insurance through his employer, I don’t know what would have happened. I guess we would have had to pay what we could to the hospital.
Exactly.
The unspoken part of the “social contract” was that couples would continue to have 3 or 4 children and, maybe, continue to die within 5 years or so of Medicare eligibility. Facts change but arguments don’t. So Presidents, culminating with George Bush, were forced to open the floodgates to immigration of young people from the south in the desperate calculus that the day of reckoning would arrive on the next guy’s shift.
You might consider that they were not vote-buying schemes. When they were initiated they seemed reasonable. What has ruined all systems [government and private] to plan for the future has been inflation.
Starting pay for a college accounting graduate post WW II was $2,500 per year. Now 60 years later pay is somewhat $50,000 or 20X higher. If inflation continues, [likely, it's the way wars are paid for] Then 60 years from now, pay will be 20X more or $1,000,000 per year. There is no way people can save for their old age on current earnings to cope with future inflation.
But regards, you are a thinking guy and you will arrive at an optimum solution.
I hope I was clear that I do not now and never have thought that Medicare and Social Security were sound. I have worked 20+ years in the employee benefits field - health insurance & retirement programs. The government eliminated pay as you go retirement programs and required bring future health care liabilities to corporate balance sheets. I know these programs cannot last in anything close to their present form.
I just don’t see proposing the abolishing of these programs as a successful electoral strategy when the government has never abolished anything substantive. Why not tackle some smaller items and build some credibility and track record?
I like starting with education. Money and services are delivered locally and at state level yet federal involvement is just a “round trip” of money through D.C. with an inordinate amount of overhead and strings attached. I know it will be demagogued (what wouldn’t) but I believe a narrative can be structured that would influence the so called recipients as well. Even many of the actual local teachers (atleast around here) would probably love to have the feds out of the way.
Medicare already pays them pennies on the $. Cataract surgery is over $4G, Medicare pays about $100. That is just to the surgery center, not the eye doc.
For 40+ years pols of both parties have been building donor palm greasing into Medicare, which is one of the biggest things driving up the cost of using Medicare. Then you have 53 Million murdered/genocide Unborn, who have not been paying Medicare taxes into the system. Add to that the illegals now on Medicare.
Neither 0’care or Ryan’s plan ‘fix’ these issues. They just gut and cut and subsidize. You don’t what to T off your donors by actually FIXING Medicare.
“Aside from the elderly, why spend a $100K to fix the heart defect of a Downs syndrome child? Would the govt allow it for a “healthy” child? What about AIDs patients? Brain tumors? How much is an extra year of life worth?”
It’s not a question of compassion, it’s a matter of ability. How much food can one expect a person to take out of his own children’s mouths to pay for some strangers welfare? In the end, if not already, that’s what it’s coming to.
Realities must be faced and decisions must be made.
AMEN! Everyone keeps screaming about what they paid in they want back but the sad fact is that it and much much more was already spent.They ought to just be glad they aren’t like those of us who are not retired yet and will have to pay for all of this.It is broke it is unafforable and is going to further bankrupt America.
Time is critical. Medicare added a staggering $1.8 trillion in unfunded liabilities last year alone. No one is talking about abolishing Medicare, but reforming it. Some may say, like McCarthy, that the Ryan plan is trying to save Medicare rather than abolishing it--a futile exercise.
There is an electoral strategy and a national strategy to keep this nation from going down the toliet. How long do you wait until addressing the problem? 2013? And the Dems may still occupy the WH. The GOP may be using a risky strategy, but the stakes are worth it. We can't continue to ignore the problem for two more years.
I like starting with education. Money and services are delivered locally and at state level yet federal involvement is just a “round trip” of money through D.C. with an inordinate amount of overhead and strings attached. I know it will be demagogued (what wouldn’t) but I believe a narrative can be structured that would influence the so called recipients as well. Even many of the actual local teachers (atleast around here) would probably love to have the feds out of the way.
The Dems will go after that issue just like reforming Medicare. Obama is talking about an even greater "investment" in education. The events in Wisconsin show how the Dems can frame an issue and make it sound like the Reps are against the education of our children. Both of my borthers and their wives are teachers. They are rabid Dem and have been energized even further by what they perceive are Rep attacks against education and teachers.
There is no issue the Dems won't demagogue. Everytiong goes back to how it affects their core consituencies and the unions. A reasoned narrative runs into problems when dealing with voters who rely on emotion and feelings. Education cannot be coopted by the Reps. Bush tried no child left behind and doubling the education budget. It wasn't enough for the NEA and the Dems. They want more "investment" in education.
That is ne of the first thigns that needs to be undone.It is crazy to firce people to accept soemthing they may not need.Health insurance should be avaliable for anyone at any age and not be cut off at 65.
Yes! While I think all other programs need to be scrapped too I know that socail secuirty and medicare mean the death of this nation no matter what the older folks want to believe.You were lied to the promises that were made can not be kept because the people you voted for spent it all and much much more.
I’m sorry but what part of “no money for” do you not comprehend? The program is broke in order to fund the unfuned promises takes nearly 3X what our GDP is and all of the bleeding heart cries in the wordl do not change that reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.