The Fiscal Cliff

[wuapinmon]

So the working poor were hurting before Bush Jr. cut their taxes?

Not as badly as they are today. I'm just guessing here based on my own experiences as someone living below the poverty line for 7 years during grad school, but I have to believer that discretionary income in the face of ever-rising commodity prices in the last 8 or so years has to have remained largely stagnant for those near or below 200% of the poverty line.

[frank ryan]

We pay for it until 2050. After that, people will know it's coming and can save for it. Health dollars should go to the young, not the old.



I did not. I would end Medicaid for anyone over age 18 if not enrolled in 501(c)(3) taught higher education/vocational training. Up to age 25 for those who are.

Um, ok Medicare doesn't kick in until you until you are 65 (for the most part) 60 plus percent of those on Medicaid are very poor children or those who are disabled.

[New Mexican Disaster]

We pay for it until 2050. After that, people will know it's coming and can save for it. Health dollars should go to the young, not the old.



I did not. I would end Medicaid for anyone over age 18 if not enrolled in 501(c)(3) taught higher education/vocational training. Up to age 25 for those who are.

I think there would be some obvious problems with getting rid of Medicare, such as premature death and major suffering of those unable to earn.

Not many folks are on medicaid over age 21 anyway unless they are severely ill or pregnant.

[wuapinmon]

Um, ok Medicare doesn't kick in until you until you are 65 (for the most part) 60 plus percent of those on Medicaid are very poor children or those who are disabled.

I'm saying that Medicare needs to end permanently. I'm willing to keep paying taxes to pay for those born before 1965 to have it. But, everyone else needs to make alternate arrangements. As for insuring children, see my above post. I want complete and universal healthcare for all children.

As for the disabled, I'd move that to Social Security, which should also be largely terminated. I'm willing to keep paying taxes for SSI for the next 30 years to get rid of the Boomers. The truly disabled should have life and home sustained. The partially disabled should be allowed to work to offset their social security. No one born after 1970 should draw social security. There should be no cap on SSI tax on income. It is a redistribution of wealth, once we stop tip-toeing around that fact, it become what it should be, insurance against a catastrophic retirement old age disaster, and not a pension through the government. I'm willing to make a sacrifice during my life to spare my kids from having to deal with future consequences of creeping entitlements.

[wuapinmon]

I think there would be some obvious problems with getting rid of Medicare, such as premature death and major suffering of those unable to earn.

Not many folks are on medicaid over age 21 anyway unless they are severely ill or pregnant.

Define premature. My grandpa lived to 95 due to free medical care. His last few years were spent in an assisted living place where he went weeks without seeing any family members (I lived in Utah and Louisiana) and he marked the days by reading his Bible and having his leg ulcer bandages changed.

Without all of the drugs, he would've died years before that. Probably peacefully. He had medicare (retired USDA 20 years), tri-care for life (retired Master Sgt, USA, 1929-1953), and some Gerber thing he bought in the 50's that paid for certain kinds of healthcare. I'd rather spend money making sure that kids are healthy than unnaturally prolonging lives with expensive treatments that none of us can afford to continue subsidizing.

[frank ryan]

I'm saying that Medicare needs to end permanently. I'm willing to keep paying taxes to pay for those born before 1965 to have it. But, everyone else needs to make alternate arrangements. As for insuring children, see my above post. I want complete and universal healthcare for all children.

As for the disabled, I'd move that to Social Security, which should also be largely terminated. I'm willing to keep paying taxes for SSI for the next 30 years to get rid of the Boomers. The truly disabled should have life and home sustained. The partially disabled should be allowed to work to offset their social security. No one born after 1970 should draw social security. There should be no cap on SSI tax on income. It is a redistribution of wealth, once we stop tip-toeing around that fact, it become what it should be, insurance against a catastrophic retirement old age disaster, and not a pension through the government. I'm willing to make a sacrifice during my life to spare my kids from having to deal with future consequences of creeping entitlements.

You're plan would screw over millions people who are beyond marginalized. Hospitals, big pharma and charities won't be able to pick up the slack. There is no denying there is a problem. But I fear your approach would put our safety net on par with Somalia. I know I'm weird but I feel pretty confident that we need a social safety net to function as nation, just like we need a military.

[frank ryan]

Define premature. My grandpa lived to 95 due to free medical care. His last few years were spent in an assisted living place where he went weeks without seeing any family members (I lived in Utah and Louisiana) and he marked the days by reading his Bible and having his leg ulcer bandages changed.

Without all of the drugs, he would've died years before that. Probably peacefully. He had medicare (retired USDA 20 years), tri-care for life (retired Master Sgt, USA, 1929-1953), and some Gerber thing he bought in the 50's that paid for certain kinds of healthcare. I'd rather spend money making sure that kids are healthy than unnaturally prolonging lives with expensive treatments that none of us can afford to continue subsidizing.

It sounds like you resent hospice care or treatment for the terminally ill as well. We could also save money by expanding the death penalty, sterilizing poor people (and mentally ill/ disabled) ending suicide prevention etc.

[New Mexican Disaster]

I'd rather spend money making sure that kids are healthy than unnaturally prolonging lives with expensive treatments that none of us can afford to continue subsidizing.

So would everyone else. Unnaturally prolonging life is not good for anyone except maybe medical providers. However there is a large difference between unnatural prolonging and making sure that people have medicine and medical care.

In case you had not noticed there is major inequality in the United States. I have a difficult time imagining that people even at the middle of the income spectrum can save enough to cover their medical care, unless they pay prohibitively high old age insurance premiums.

I agree that more money should be spent keeping kinds healthy. That is why so many children are on medicaid right now. I am not sure that there is a children's health crisis in this country.

[wuapinmon]

It sounds like you resent hospice care or treatment for the terminally ill as well. We could also save money by expanding the death penalty, sterilizing poor people (and mentally ill/ disabled) ending suicide prevention etc.

I'm going to ignore this because you're my friend.

[frank ryan]

So would everyone else. Unnaturally prolonging life is not good for anyone except maybe medical providers. However there is a large difference between unnatural prolonging and making sure that people have medicine and medical care.

In case you had not noticed there is major inequality in the United States. I have a difficult time imagining that people even at the middle of the income spectrum can save enough to cover their medical care, unless they pay prohibitively high old age insurance premiums.

I agree that more money should be spent keeping kinds healthy. That is why so many children are on medicaid right now. I am not sure that there is a children's health crisis in this country.

Kid's aren't the populous that can't get access to healthcare right now. So basically he is in favor of ending the entitlement altogether, while reducing the need for the private insurance industry to exist.

[The_Douger]

So would everyone else. Unnaturally prolonging life is not good for anyone except maybe medical providers. However there is a large difference between unnatural prolonging and making sure that people have medicine and medical care.

In case you had not noticed there is major inequality in the United States. I have a difficult time imagining that people even at the middle of the income spectrum can save enough to cover their medical care, unless they pay prohibitively high old age insurance premiums.

I agree that more money should be spent keeping kinds healthy. That is why so many children are on medicaid right now. I am not sure that there is a children's health crisis in this country.

I'm not entirely sure medical providers enjoy prolonging life of the very elderly or very ill.

I think wuap's ideas have a lot of merit.

SSI is a ponzi scheme. I'd be all for getting lump summed out of that, or straight just lose what I've put in if I didn't have to continue to contribute. I'm not planning on that for anything.

I guess I just wonder what you do for all the people who are elderly, but have a setback at some point, and then live another 8 years after that. There's too many "what ifs" with people for it to fit everyone.

[frank ryan]

I'm going to ignore this because you're my friend.

I don't want to torture people by trying to Terry Schivo them in their old age and we need some painful austerity cuts. I'll admit I don't have an answer but I sincerely believe no one does.

[frank ryan]

I'm not entirely sure medical provideres enjoy prolonging life of the very elderly or very ill.

I think wuap's ideas have a lot of merit.

Cancer treatment is expensive, so is dialysis. If we quit providing care for that the problem would be solved. Where does the line get drawn?

[New Mexican Disaster]

I think wuap's ideas have a lot of merit.

His cure is worse than the disease.

[The_Douger]

Cancer treatment is expensive, so is dialysis. If we quit providing care for that the problem would be solved. Where does the line get drawn?

I edited my post up above, for that type of reason.

I think the safety net should be for those types of things (severe chronic illness, cancer, heart attack), and provided for all by the government.

Otherwise, I think you should go in and pay 50 bucks to your doctor for a cholesterol and diabetes check or your sinusitis visit and move on. That's simple chronic and acute stuff. It's pretty easy to manage. There's good evidence on how to treat it. And Blue Cross doesn't really need to be involved in the transaction.

We already dick around with percentages and games played by insurance companies. I get paid different amounts by each insurance company for doing the exact same work on people.

It should just be one transparent cost instead of overcharging the crap out of it, so you can get your 62% or whatever you agreed to when you negotiated your deal with whoever.

I think the germany model is a nice one.