What's The Real Reason For Medicare Reform?
Apparently, many health care insurance experts--most of whom are economists, not health care professionals--believe that federal taxpayer monies spent on healthcare for seniors (Medicare), do not represent an investment, like education spending does.
This is based upon the fact that most Medicare expenditures are for retirees, or "for folks who are no longer productive--or in the work force." So reform, to bring these costs under control is the order of the day.
And the mission is to reform Medicare, turning it into a defined contribution, rather than a defined benefit plan.
Here's an excerpt from the Third Way Memo above, entitled "Six Facts About the Grand Bargain," that supports this contention, IMO.
"Medicare and Social Security are stretched for well-established reasons. First, retirees take out more than they put into the programs. An average-income, newly retired couple, for example, will take out 38% more than they contributed to these programs."
My question is:
When did this become an issue? The program was designed as a defined benefit plan, subsidized by taxpayer money.
It may be incremental, but I feel certain that one day we'll have both a Social Security and a Medicare program that is financed out of ONLY our own contributions. Which means, obviously, that many people will have very little coverage.
“If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson