medicare reduction

[Anarchist420]

what do you think about the following proposal (focus particularly on the ones that relate to medicare the most:

making payroll taxes optional for those 35 and older (if they want to remain in the SS and MC system for benefits)
no one less than 35 as of today can pay payroll taxes
everyone less than 35 as of today is out of the SS/MC system (i.e., they will never collect SS/MC)
medicare part D limited to generic and imported drugs only.
current medicare fee system ended and replaced with an optional fee system where each person is charged 2/3 of all non-SS income after the first $28k to receive medicare.
all medical expenses deductible (whether for yourself, for a relative, or charitable) plus 100% tax credit (except not past owing no income taxes overall) for purchase of negative outcome malpractice insurance.
repeal of ACA.
ending the current business/corporate tax code and replacing it with the following:
13% profits tax on:
businesses with 250 or more unique employees in one year and if they got $2 bn in revenue in one year.
but no taxes on profits earned outside of u.s. jurisdiction

repealing the AMT (or simply a 1% surtax on people with an AGI of $125K or greater) and cutting the 10% marginal rate to 5%, the 15% to 10%, the 25% to 20%, the 28% to 23%, and the 33% becoming 29.7%.

repealing all capital gains taxes, legalizing private mints, and repealing legal tender for all private and State-level transactions.
all shelter expenses deductible
all existing deductions remain (except the std. deduction).
making all shelter expenses tax deductible
making the personal exemption $22/filer
ending the standard deduction
deduct up to $50k of State/local taxes.
going to single filer.
repealing the NFA, SOX, and DF
ending all import quotas
repealing all tariffs (or having 5% ad valorem tariff on all imported goods, although repeal of all of them would be better) while getting out of all trade treaties.
slash public expenditure to not more than 1.9Tn.
tax only wages and salaries for income tax.
decentralize 90% of federal assets (weapons and land) to the States and decentralizing the public debt based upon that and representation.

the proposal above is not only pragmatic, it is the best thing we could do futurity other than abolishing the State and replacing it with nothing.

i think that the current medicare fee system is atrocious because it's not optional... my parents have to pay about $3k each year in medicare fees plus whatever medicare doesnt cover.

 

[EagleKeeper]

One can purchase Medicare supplemental plans for about $150/month. That eliminates the 20% of what Medicare does not cover.

Turns your Medicare system into what was considered to be a Cadillac type plan before Obama decided that he knew better than anyone else how insurance should be run.


You need to keep your OP on topic not going all over the place.

 

[Anarchist420]

One can purchase Medicare supplemental plans for about $150/month. That eliminates the 20% of what Medicare does not cover.

lwell, kind of, but that's pretty expensive given that people are forced to pay for medicare not only through payroll and income taxes, but also through mandatory user fees.

no one should be forced to pay for medicare... health care wouldnt be more expensive for my parents or the vast majority of retirees if there were no govt; in fact, it would be quite a bit cheaper.

You need to keep your OP on topic not going all over the place.

terribly sorry. i will try to do better from now on.

Turns your Medicare system into what was considered to be a Cadillac type plan before Obama decided that he knew better than anyone else how insurance should be run.

it's not just obama... this whole govt regulation of medicine and mandates that insurance cover everything were decided long before pelosicare. but i do think those who think that insurance should be the only way to get health care are idiots because in a free society id say that well more than half of all of healthcare expenses would be paid out of pocket.

 

[brianmanahan]

no

 

[EagleKeeper]

Consider Medicare an insurance that is pre-paid well in advance.

Look at what the insurance plans being offered in your area through the exchanges.

The cost of those plans are much much more for your parents; (pretend they are in their early 60's) than the measly $250/yr that a person pays for Medicare when they work.

If you worked 40 years; that is about 10K of pre-paid Medical insurance. Hang around for 20 years and that averages to $500/yr extra that was paid. So your parents are getting a full insurance package for $4000 year that is better than what they could get on the exchanges (deductibles/copays) and cheaper.

Why do you think that healthcare would be cheaper without Medicare? Who will pick up the tab for the care?
Medicare already pays the providers less than an insurance company.
Our family MD will only see 1 Medicare patient a day due to the cost structure

 

[Anarchist420]

Why do you think that healthcare would be cheaper without Medicare? Who will pick up the tab for the care? Medicare already pays the providers less than an insurance company. Our family MD will only see 1 Medicare patient a day due to the cost structure

because there would be no taxes (which reduce savings causing people to have to turn to medicare), no inflation, no patents, and because medicare places regulations on practices and hospitals. additionally, there would be no licensure, and people would pay out of pocket. cash only practices have much less overhead and that's the way things would be in a free society maybe some people would buy really cheap insurance for catastrophic events.

and insurance companies overpay because they dont really provide what insurance is supposed to be... they pay for everything instead.

 

[EagleKeeper]

because there would be no taxes (which reduce savings causing people to have to turn to medicare), no inflation, no patents, and because medicare places regulations on practices and hospitals. additionally, there would be no licensure, and people would pay out of pocket. cash only practices have much less overhead and that's the way things would be in a free society maybe some people would buy really cheap insurance for catastrophic events.

and insurance companies overpay because they dont really provide what insurance is supposed to be... they pay for everything instead.

because there would be no taxes (which reduce savings causing people to have to turn to medicare),

You think that the savings of $500 in Medicare taxes/year is going to be saved for 40 years and not used?

no inflation

Medicare taxes nor medical costs are what is driving inflation

no patents

without protection for ones work; there is very little incentive to spend $$ in developing anything - not just medical related.

no licensure

So anyone can hang out a shingle without showing that they are qualified?
You take meds; what happens if some clerk at Walgreens/CVS/ etc in HS were to dispense those meds to you; grab something off the shelf or use something that was heard on TV. Never checking your medical history. You want that person in charge of your life?

people would pay out of pocket.

People do pay out of their pocket. Some will have the $$ stashed away to cover large medical bills. Few are able to pay for everything needed without insurance coverage.

Again using you as an example; do you make enough income to pay for all the services in the medical area that you need. Meds, MD visits; medical procedures. Do your parents make enough income to handle the same for themselves and you. Even if you removed the current Medicare payments that they make and add in the $10K over their lifetime that was paid to Medicare.

cash only practices have much less overhead

So a provider's office is able to remove one staff member that handle insurance issues.

If an MD office charges $100/hr cash for a 30 minute visit (ignoring fees for lab tests), in a 10 hr day, they are pulling in $2000 after seeing 20 patients. If you are able to remove
a $20hr person your $2000/day saves $260. So the fee might be able to be dropped $10 per patient. Is that really a huge savings. you now need to spend more time with someone having to keep track of the $$; and get it to the bank. A part timer is now needed at the same rate. so you have now saved $5 avg per patient. but if they pay by credit cards; there are overheads for that. And because of all the cash from people that do not use CC; they have to hire a security guard at $15/hr for the 10 hr shift but pay the security company $25/hr to cover that companies overhead. So it seems as if the $20 per person overhead caused by insurance has ballooned to $35/hr because of other needs when running a all cash type system.

insurance companies overpay because they dont really provide what insurance is supposed to be... they pay for everything instead.

they do not pay for everything; they pay for what the insurance policy contracts for and the rate they agree to with the provider.

 

[waggy]

because there would be no taxes (which reduce savings causing people to have to turn to medicare), no inflation, no patents, and because medicare places regulations on practices and hospitals. additionally, there would be no licensure, and people would pay out of pocket. cash only practices have much less overhead and that's the way things would be in a free society maybe some people would buy really cheap insurance for catastrophic events.

and insurance companies overpay because they dont really provide what insurance is supposed to be... they pay for everything instead.

wow just when we think you can't top your last idiotic thread/post. you go and do it!

/applaud

 

[EagleKeeper]

wow just when we think you can't top your last idiotic thread/post. you go and do it!

/applaud

When you do not have exposure to the real world and all your inputs come from questionable web sites what more can you expect.

 

[Anarchist420]

Again using you as an example; do you make enough income to pay for all the services in the medical area that you need. Meds, MD visits; medical procedures. Do your parents make enough income to handle the same for themselves and you. Even if you removed the current Medicare payments that they make and add in the $10K over their lifetime that was paid to Medicare.

my medical expenses would be much, much less expensive in a free society... a maximum of $600/year for medications, maybe two doctors visits (not more than $70 each) and that would be about it. but instead, there are patents which requires me to have insurance to get my medications (or else id pay even more than without insurance) and then about $350 in co-pays for medicines then $30 copay each for 5 office visits (more office visits because my medications are not over the counter which they would be in a free society). so guessing the insurance policy was $200/month (and that's a minimum for sure), it would be not less than $2.9k vs. no more than $740.

i wouldnt even buy catastrophic coverage because id just want them to give me morphine while letting me die if i went to the hospital for a serious accident.

and my dad has made well over 100k each of the past twenty years so he was taxed 1.45% on all of that income for medicare... then he and my mom will pay an additional $3k/year for it once he retires.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Patents do not require you to get insurance.
Patents protect the people that invested millions of dollars in research and clinical trials to create your medications that you need.
Why should a company invest money when it can be poached at little or no cost by a competitor? Better to not spend the costs to develop the drug in the first place.

It is the same as anyone working for free.

So the insurance is paying for your meds; that is exactly what Medicare Part D does.


Did you look up costs of insurance plans that offer the same coverage as Medicare in your area for people over 60. How does that compare to the $300 that you parents will pay.

 

[EagleKeeper]

i wouldnt even buy catastrophic coverage because id just want them to give me morphine while letting me die if i went to the hospital for a serious accident.

How are you going to get to the hospital after the accident;

What happens if you have a half dozen broken ribs due to an accident of your doing; trip and fall through a glass door.
Not life threatening but you will be laid up for a couple of weeks. Where do those costs come from.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally Posted by Anarchist420 -my medical expenses would be much, much less expensive in a free society... a maximum of $600/year for medications,

That's not true at all and you know it....
if you don`t know it then perhaps you yourself do not pay for your meds.

Originally Posted by Anarchist420 - wouldnt even buy catastrophic coverage because id just want them to give me morphine while letting me die if i went to the hospital for a serious accident.

As if you think you have a choice as to what they do for you.

 

[piasabird]

Medical care is not that simple. Good luck getting someone to take your medicare. The government keeps arbitrarily reducing what is an acceptable charge and then they just refuse to cover so many things that is almost worthless.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Medical care is not that simple. Good luck getting someone to take your medicare. The government keeps arbitrarily reducing what is an acceptable charge and then they just refuse to cover so many things that is almost worthless.

you would know?? We have not had any issues with Medicare covering anything.....don`t believe everything you hear on the internet!

 

[Anarchist420]

That's not true at all and you know it.... if you don`t know it then perhaps you yourself do not pay for your meds.

why do you think that's not true? my parents pay for my meds, but id like to know why you think that what i said isn't true.

As if you think you have a choice as to what they do for you.

i have made my wishes clear to my parents and even have them written down and signed. so why wouldn't i have a choice? just wondering

Patents do not require you to get insurance.

they do if i my parents dont want to pay a time and a half more for my medications.

Patents protect the people that invested millions of dollars in research and clinical trials to create your medications that you need. Why should a company invest money when it can be poached at little or no cost by a competitor? Better to not spend the costs to develop the drug in the first place.

patents guarantee above market profits for those that hold them. and people like philanthropists or even individuals could fund medicines that they want developed... someone could copy them for sure, but if someone wants the medications created badly enough then they will fund it.

it can only be concluded that ip has limited human progress by charging the poor above-market prices and there is no conclusive proof that ip has given the world more inventions.

 

[EagleKeeper]

What determines the market price; to cost to manufacture/distribute the product or should that include the cost of R&D plus testing.

Drugs are not developed out of thin air; who should pay for those costs?
Individuals do not have billions or $$ lying around to develop a drug that may not work.
Philanthropist are the same;

The patent guarantees that the company will get back it's investment

 

[waggy]

you would know?? We have not had any issues with Medicare covering anything.....don`t believe everything you hear on the internet!

agreed.

though i am seeing more and more places refusing NEW medicare patients.

 

[Anarchist420]

The patent guarantees that the company will get back it's investment

why should they be guaranteed? if someone starts a medical practice or a restaurant, then they arent guaranteed to get their investment back. why should pharmaceutical companies be any different?

patents are an old guard, hamiltonian, monarcho-conservative policy that have no place in a free society.

Drugs are not developed out of thin air; who should pay for those costs? Individuals do not have billions or $$ lying around to develop a drug that may not work. Philanthropist are the same;

drugs dont cost billions to develop, maybe $55mn on average with the FDA. and that would go down to less than $55mn without the FDA.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The patent guarantees that the company will get back it's investment

why should they be guaranteed? if someone starts a medical practice or a restaurant, then they arent guaranteed to get their investment back. why should pharmaceutical companies be any different?

patents are an old guard, hamiltonian, monarcho-conservative policy that have no place in a free society.

Drugs are not developed out of thin air; who should pay for those costs? Individuals do not have billions or $$ lying around to develop a drug that may not work. Philanthropist are the same;

drugs dont cost billions to develop, maybe $55mn on average with the FDA. and that would go down to less than $55mn without the FDA.

1) People start a business to make money, not to lose it. Our system is such that we reward people for taking risks. Protect their investment for a period of time to allow them to recoup the investment. That is what patents are for.
A paycheck for the company.

Your father works for a paycheck; he expects to be compensated for his time/effort that he puts in for the company. Or do you expect him to work for free?

2) The FDA exists to protect the public and ensure that the drugs are properly tested before going to the public.

Would you prefer your med to be whipped up by a neighbor down the street dumping bunch of chemicals into a mixing bowl and handing them to you. cheaper that way. Go ahead take a chance.

As to a drug cost; please link to where you are pulling those $55M numbers.

 

[poofyhairguy]

though i am seeing more and more places refusing NEW medicare patients.

Or "sure, the next available Medicare appointment is in 9 months."

 

[nanette1985]

agreed.

though i am seeing more and more places refusing NEW medicare patients.

I suppose this varies depending on location. Here in NJ it is really difficult to find a doc who accepts medicare.

 

[JEDIYoda]

agreed.

though i am seeing more and more places refusing NEW medicare patients.

Sadly that is the case!! Fortunately that was not the case 15 years ago and the doctors my wife has for various issues have been seeing her off and on for a good while!!
My wife needed to go see a back specialist, we had to find somebody who was taking Medicare patients. We did not find somebody! My wife`s GP pulled some strings for us...we were fortunate!!

The only option had she not been able to see somebody was to burden the local emergency room staff with what was not an emergency!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Or "sure, the next available Medicare appointment is in 9 months."

<-- this too.....when I went on disability and needed to find a GP it took me 3 weeks of calling and when I did get my 1st appointment it was 3 months later.