Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
My experience with Medicare seems to be contrary to what is being implied by some of these posts. The cost to the Government and taxpayer's is hidden by the low premiums that the Medicare eligible person pays. One trip to the hospital without coverage would bankrupt the average person. Only those paying for health insurance before Medicare are paying a premium based on the reality of the costs of medical treatment. If Medicare was eliminated premiums would rise to match the reality of the market and the Government would save billions by not paying into the system. Of course your premiums would rise. That would be the cost of not relying on Uncle Sam to subsidize the health insurance industry.
|
Where does that reasoning come from? Too many inconsistencies to work with, so I am not going to pick you supposition apart.
What "low premiums" are you referring to? You pay via payroll taxes for 35-45 years or more. If you are referring to the supplemental plans, that is a different matter.
"Subsidize the health insurance industry?" Subsidize is to give or pay for a product or service. If you mean, give a tax break, that's different. I have to laugh every time some suggests that we are "subsidizing" the oil industry when the fact is that we are allowing them to keep some of their money....THEIR money.
Liberals like to think of tax breaks as the gov GIVING you money. Money that you earned and they just allowed you to keep.
Maybe I misunderstood your comment on Medicare.
If Medicare is not doing well, and failing, then someone has to either replace it, or modify it to last. Same with Social Security. Making believe that there isn't any problem with the system does not make failure go away. Someone needs to man up and acknowledge that we have a problem and that it needs to be fixed. Diversion is not an option.