HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » If we want to keep Medica...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:15 AM

 

If we want to keep Medicare as is we should demand a payroll tax for part B and part D.

The biggest risk to Medicare as we know it is that for doctors and drugs, the premiums only cover 25% and the rest comes from the income tax. As the interest on the national debt grows and grows along with other obligations it will crowd out the capability of the general fund to keep paying the entire obligation to Medicare as Medicare competes with education and housing and food stamps and defense and medicaid and aid to the states and infrastructure and r & d and all the other areas the Federal Government subsidizes.

Having a dedicated fund for Medicare part B and D will keep the programs from being cut. Moreover the tax needs to rise as medical costs rise.

Health costs are only going to grow as a percent of GDP. Without dedicated funding it will only become more of a political football as it competes with every other obligation and promise of the federal government.

Of course we could do something to overhaul the entire health care system which seems preferable to me, but without a huge change in the system itself, it needs a more reliable and dedicated source of funding than income taxes.

13 replies, 863 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply If we want to keep Medicare as is we should demand a payroll tax for part B and part D. (Original post)
dkf Dec 2012 OP
oldhippie Dec 2012 #1
dkf Dec 2012 #6
ProSense Dec 2012 #2
dkf Dec 2012 #3
ProSense Dec 2012 #7
dkf Dec 2012 #9
ProSense Dec 2012 #11
dkf Dec 2012 #12
ProSense Dec 2012 #13
oldhippie Dec 2012 #4
ProSense Dec 2012 #8
Scuba Dec 2012 #5
Romulox Dec 2012 #10

Response to dkf (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:30 AM

1. " ...the premiums only cover 25% and the rest comes from the income tax."

 

Ha! There are so many here that will not believe that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:36 AM

6. Well if they realize only Part A has a payroll tax fund then it should be more obvious.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:30 AM

2. Nonsense.

The government simply needs to negotiate drug prices. What's the point of adding money to pay for an overpriced product?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:34 AM

3. What about doctors services? Are they overpriced also?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to ProSense (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:17 AM

9. That's $5 billion in savings for seniors, not savings for Medicare.

 

In fact the fixes for seniors increased the cost to Medicare. You've got this point backwards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:21 AM

11. I know what it is.

"In fact the fixes for seniors increased the cost to Medicare. You've got this point backwards."

What absolute nonsense.

Bending The Curve

<...>



In other words, the Medicare actuaries believe that the cost-saving provisions in the Obama health reform will make a huge difference to the long-run budget outlook. Yes, its just a projection, and debatable like all projections. And its still not enough. But anyone who both claims to be worried about the long-run deficit and was opposed to health reform has some explaining to do. All the facts we have suggest that health reform was the biggest move toward fiscal responsibility in a long, long time.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/bending-the-curve/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:25 AM

12. From your link...

 

Taking that into account, the CBOs report estimates that the net cost of closing the donut hole will actually be $51 billion significantly less than the previous $86 billion estimate.

And I'm talking about your drug negotiation point. They negotiated prices down but increased the govt payment ala the donut hole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:28 AM

13. What's your point:

"Taking that into account, the CBOs report estimates that the net cost of closing the donut hole will actually be $51 billion significantly less than the previous $86 billion estimate."

Is $51 billion more than $86 billion?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:34 AM

4. Yeah, offer them $0.25 on the dollar, take it or leave it!

 

That'll surely work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:49 AM

8. Good thing you're not the negotiator. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:34 AM

5. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:20 AM

10. Translation: Drug companies want a mandatory, taxpayer funded stream of payment, too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread