Their benefits are being paid right now, and it would not matter if Warren Buffet would have ran the program it still would be in trouble due to skyrocketing healthcare costs. Medicare is in trouble because healthcare costs are growing at least twice the inflation rate.
Right, tort law and the AMA have alot to do with skyrocketing healthcare costs, but the fact is that most of the bleed on Medicare is administrative costs and the fact that the funding is not protected against being leached off of by the general fund, in other words, 100% of it's funding does not go where it belongs. Outside of that, taxes are never enough to fund something as inflation prone and overregulated as the health industry by itself because of the nature of this mess, but there are alternatives to a tax only model, such as heath funds being annuitized, HSA models being modified and other funding mechanisms such as bonds, it's quite possible to keep the program solvent, but less convenient for political purposes.
First off, I am not arguing against the societal need for Medicare or some other program like it. The vast majority of seniors could not fund their own retirement on their own and fund their own medical coverage through the private sector.
Untrue, seniors benefits are still being taxed, which takes them out of the retirement planning market if they are stuck with government only retirement benefits, the first thing that should happen is everyone's taxes should be lowered so that people can fund their own needs such as food, shelter, retirement planning, etc., furthermore, there are plenty of private market solutions that are more than sufficient to help seniors but if they are concentrating on pure survival these options are fiscally out of their reaches, IRA's, Annuities, private pension funds, mutual funds, and even the stock market(if people can stand the risk) are all fantastic options, but again, sometimes the taxes shorten gains or the minimums for the plans are out of reach when people have no savings less after tax.
Without a massively subsidized program, most seniors could not possibly afford health care. So while Medicare is ripe for reform, its a necessity unless we want the majority of seniors to do without healthcare.
You're close, reform is needed, but for efficiency in provision and cost, not subsidy reform.
Secondly, I am not even necessarily arguing in favor of a federal universal healthcare system. In a nation of 300 million people, I don't see how such a program could possibly be managed efficiently at the federal level.
Fair enough, I may have misunderstood where you were coming from as this is the major contention point at the moment.
My problem is with the hypocrisy. If you depend on the world's largest socialist healthcare program, and that program is made possible by huge wealth transfers from younger working generations, then don't drag your ass out to a town hall to scream against "socialism" and "keeping the government out of your Medicare". That is the very definition of hypocrisy. Unless we all want to see huge increases in our FICA taxes, Medicare has to be reformed. That is just the way it is. However, we will be able to reform it if we have a bunch of hypocrites out decrying socialism every time someone from either side of the political spectrum suggests we do anything to change it.
I still don't see it as the quite the same thing, simply because of the contributory nature of the programs.
If you ask me, Medicare would be fairly simple to fix. All we need to do is start charging Medicare recipients premiums that account for the risk their personal life choices result in.
Actually, since supplementals are semi-private, give tax credits for using them and allow the companies more bargaining power so that they can relax underwriting standards and open up that market more, this would take alot of the payment burden off of the Medicare A/B side.
