You simply can’t rely on one-sided references to make important decisions with these kinds of complex programs...
All articles, regardless of whether they are on a liberal website or conservative, are one-sided; they usually leave out important points which do not support the article’s slant. Thus, I find that reading the comment section helps to more accurately inform me; but that depends on whether knowledgeable folks are participating. E.g., here are two comments which bring up good points: -------------- Paul Krugman [the author of the referenced article] has also distorted the facts. As a practicing doctor I can attest to the waste and fraud in the Medicare system. There will be rationing of care. The very elderly will not receive a hip replacement if their estimated longevity does not justify it. The Obama money will be insufficient as costs escalate. The system will be overwhelmed when large numbers of newly covered patients seek care. Hospitals will close as their reimbursement drops. Doctors will drop out of Medicare. Only the well off will be able to buy private care. We need competition in the system. Medicare has a cost of insurance per patient as do vouchers. This cost has been increasing exponentially. Medicare Advantage has more benefits, thus higher costs and premiums. What does Obamacare do for Medicare. It removes a large number of dollars. I doubt if this money can be made up with savings elsewhere in Medicare. What makes Krugman the ultimate authority on Medicare? Are there not other ways to reform heath care? Perhaps a combination of conservative and liberal ideas might work? (The number for voucher care in the comment section by Kimberly is incorrect.) Let's sort out the real facts, then we can take a reasonable course. -------------------- Paul, by defending the Medicare status quo you're missing the point. The growth of Medicare costs is unsustainable. The Republicans plan to solve that problem via private insurers who will shift cost onto the patient, who then is forced to choose just how much that MRI scan is worth to him or her. That would be an effective, market-based solution, but it rations care based on ability to pay. Total health costs may go up or down - the purses of the people decide. The Democrats, on the other hand, propose that the government will study health care decisions and determine by edict which treatments are worth paying for. Thus, the government would ration health care for everyone and force costs down whether people like it or not. Which form of rationing do you prefer: big government or free market? ------------------- I would agree with the liberal side that a single-payer system would likely be more efficient, and that medical insurance companies take too much of our premiums in administrative costs, but then, with the federal govt raiding the social security ‘fund’ and numerous other bloated and wasteful programs, one would have to be blind to think that the govt is going to do it more efficiently than a competitive system. -Mark From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 3:46 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 3:35 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: Care to explain how government entitlements are ‘self-funding’… And how do they ‘help to bring down costs’… No problem. Medicare is believed to bring down costs through its bargaining power and ability to control costs [1]. If you broke up the system into agencies that operate at the level of US states, it is likely that health care inflation would increase. Social security is self-funding, through the payroll tax. It is not a strain on the current deficit. See, for example, [2]. Its self-funding arrangement is part of a longer term problem, because this arrangement creates the illusion that it can just run on its own indefinitely. But social security is not a problem at the present moment. Beyond its budget neutrality, I would guess that, if anything, it is sustaining a lot of older people who would be on the streets and placing additional strain on public services and private entities such as hospitals. Eric [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/opinion/Krugman.html?_r=0 [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/budget-baloney-why-social_b_824331.html
