Last week, the online version of this newspaper ran an informal survey, asking, \u201cShould the federal government make cuts in the Medicare program to cut the deficit?\u201d The overwhelming response was \u201cno\u201d. Sure, it\u2019s unscientific, but with a 61 percent no vote, that\u2019s a landslide. Don\u2019t cut my bennies, bro.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Even if legislators wanted to, it\u2019s too hard to make cuts to that program. If any of them say \u201cI want to cut Medicare benefits\u201d, they\u2019ll be on the fast-track to becoming private citizens again.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
But the reality is we\u2019re going to have to cut the benefits there, or raise taxes significantly. If you are married and will be 65 this year, and made an average wage of about $43,000 recently, you\u2019ll have paid about $55,000 in Medicare taxes over your lifetime. Your benefits will be about $343,000, on average.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t need to tell you that we can\u2019t keep doing this.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The first solutions proposed to solve this problem included reducing the benefits by not paying for some expensive procedures at the end of a person\u2019s life expectancy. Prominent politicians quickly labeled this solution \u201cdeath panels\u201d to get their name in the paper, and to score brownie points with elderly voters.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The latest proposal is to give vouchers to senior citizens, and let them choose which procedures they want to pay for. If you want to use your vouchers for a week-long Viagra party instead of kidney dialysis, well, that\u2019s your choice. Crafty seniors will likely end up using the vouchers for less urgent needs and will go to the emergency room for the medical needs that are covered there (my retirement is already planned out, as you can tell).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
It sounds good on paper. You\u2019ll get a choice of where your medical money goes, and not the big mean nanny government. The theory is, individuals will make their own decisions on their health care, and the market forces will drive down the costs. Wal-Mart sells more stuff because their prices are cheaper, and people are getting a lot more stuff for the same money than they are at Nordstrom\u2019s. Politicians are hoping that the story will repeat itself in the medical field.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Except that we\u2019re looking at the equation incorrectly. The stuff at Wal-Mart is cheaper because Wal-Mart uses its huge purchasing power to clobber its suppliers for the lowest prices. You and I as individuals cannot clobber the medical providers with a fistful of vouchers, but 45 million of us as a single entity can, which is how Medicare works today.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Plus, Medicare already has a voucher-type program called Medicare Advantage. Only about 25 percent of seniors choose this option, and guess what; the program actually costs more than the standard Medicare program. About 13 percent higher. The only way we\u2019ll save money with vouchers is if they aren\u2019t big enough to pay for the treatments.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Maybe that is the answer; I don\u2019t know. It\u2019s either that or raise everyone\u2019s taxes. Medicare cost us about $793 billion last year, which is more than one-third of the amount of taxes the federal government took in.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Most of the defensive opinions I\u2019ve read about this issue talk about the \u201cpromises made to our seniors\u201d that the social insurance programs will be ready to carry them into their golden years. I don\u2019t know that benefits were actually promised, but I am sensitive to the needs of impoverished senior citizens. Between my wife and me, three out of our four parents will rely solely on Medicare for their health coverage. Two of them have no savings and rely completely on Social Security for income.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
But we have to make a stand here. We can\u2019t keep kicking this problem to the next generation. We either have to pay more money to continue this kind of health care, or have the conviction to hand out pain pills to our seniors and say our goodbyes.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Last week, the online version of this newspaper ran an informal survey, asking, \u201cShould the federal government make cuts in the Medicare program to cut the deficit?\u201d The overwhelming response was \u201cno\u201d. Sure, it\u2019s unscientific, but with a 61 percent no vote, that\u2019s a landslide. Don\u2019t cut my bennies, bro.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":248,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"yst_prominent_words":[],"class_list":["post-13099","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-opinion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kentreporter.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13099"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kentreporter.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kentreporter.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kentreporter.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/248"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kentreporter.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13099"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.kentreporter.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13099\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kentreporter.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13099"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kentreporter.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13099"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kentreporter.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13099"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kentreporter.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=13099"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}