Is Medicare Healthy?

Posted By: austin c @ 09/05/2008 8:31:37 PM
Comment: The Medicare only cover seniors above 65 which involves only a part of the total population of U.S. Except for Part D for drug which does not cover all the seniors, I think Medicare is a great thing to be available , the cost of medical service is controlled by the government. For general population, we should look forward for the national health insurance, which is currently praticed by many developed nations with per capita medical expense much less than in U.S. which currently has no national health insurance. the key of its success is to cut down the charges of the medical services, which has been done in Medicare with some success.


That lower cost of medical care in third world countries is because those countries don't have the burden associated with ingenuity. In other words, we have one of the highest health care costs, because this market is paying off all of the innovations.

Other countries benefit from American innovation, yet don't have to expense it. Indonesia didn't invent the X-Ray and therefore does have to pay it's cost.

Look at Japan, their cost of living is skyrocketed compared to ours because their market has to bear the burden of their innovation.

Same thing in medical costs here.

The big issue is poor research and the number of people that use brand-names instead of generics. Medicine companies are forced to provide a generic if one isn't on the market already. This was intended to curtail medical costs. Yet government insurance programs are inforcing this as much as privately owned insurance. My private insurance always forces me to buy generics if they are available and proven to work the same.

The one guy with the disability. If the medicine is the same then you're suffering from a sugar pill effect. There's no way the inactive ingrediants can make the difference. However, if there's a true medical difference in the two, then you are the anomoly, and we should give you the medicine that works.

For most people, however, the generic works just fine.

A man of great wisdom:
http://www.atlah.org/broadcast/manningreport.html

I am permanently disabled from two brain injuries. The only meds that have worked for me have been Wellbutrin XL and Buspar. In both instances of attempting to use the generics, I have been reduced to total incapacity to function in the world, including a decision to end my life. Brain cells make and break survival. So, Obama and McClain, am I and others like me, expendible dollars? You know, like the incidentals of war?

The only way to save medicare will be to limit benefits. Yes other developed countries have national health programs, but they are not unlimited. Only in America do you think you need to dialyze 90 yr olds at 70k$/yr.
80% of cost associated with 20 % of people and often in thier last 1-2 yrs of life because no one says no even when obvious. Only the goverment will be able to reign in this narcissistic behavior.

The Medicare only cover seniors above 65 which involves only a part of the total population of U.S. Except for Part D for drug which does not cover all the seniors, I think Medicare is a great thing to be available , the cost of medical service is controlled by the government. For general population, we should look forward for the national health insurance, which is currently praticed by many developed nations with per capita medical expense much less than in U.S. which currently has no national health insurance. the key of its success is to cut down the charges of the medical services, which has been done in Medicare with some success.

Limiting Medicare benefits to only those in financial need would never pass muster with taxpayers who have paid the 1.45% Medicare tax for so many years. (Make that 1.9% for the self-employed.) Nor would raing the eligibility age be very popular, or as noted save that much money.However, why not let early retirees and individuals losing their jobs who have not reached 65 and who face big premiums for medical coverage (if they can get it) "buy" into the Medicare system? Is there some way to extend coverage to these groups on a pay-for basis? It would infuse funds into the Medicare system. It would be a "pilot" National Health Care type coverage and it would encourage earlier retirements and more job opportunities for the younger generation.

Limiting Medicare to "those in financial need" makes no sense for two reasons: first, that would simply duplicate Medicaid programs which give benefits to those in financial need, including the elderly and disabled; second, as your own article states, it wouldn't save much money because the "high-income group is a very small percentage of the elderly" and "it's hard to even say what their incomes are because the elderly are mostly living off their assets, like their homes".
John Trout

As a nation, we should be discussing welfare reform and health care reforms of those receiving medicaid programs. I.e. limiting the amount of free benefits, drug testing, birth control, etc. Health care reforms would be less crucial if we tightened up the welfare system and made it appropriate coverage not abused coverage. Unfortunately, no politician has the strength to attempt to make these necessary changes for obvious fears. I would like to see the candidates have to answer to questions such as how do we repair our faulty welfare system?