dimitrig said:

---

My parents are all on Medicare and while it is a wonderful program there aren't really any checks and balances to make sure they pay their fair share. One parent has been in and out of the hospital for anxiety mainly (keeps going to the ER every time there are heart palpitations despite a cardiologist giving the all clear) and each time the bill is thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands. The out of pocket is nothing.

As a taxpayer I am not happy at this abuse of the system. There has to be a way to force a reimbursement of that medical care or else make it a lot cheaper.

---

My Mom is in her 80's and diabetic and on a handful of medications.
Medicare doesnt cover everything. Hence her $230 a month Medicare supplemental thru UNH.

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Spending on seniors will reach 100% of federal tax revenues by 2040 based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, including interest expense.

Interestingly enough, the current $31 trillion US debt load doesn't account for future entitlement payments. Accounting for the present value of that burden, the debt load is more like $200 trillion.

Clearly, the big issue is entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which without cuts today will have to be slashed in the future.

As Stanley Druckenmiller pointed out the other day in a speech at the USC Business School, worrying over the debt-ceiling is kind of like obsessing over a 30' wave that is about to hit the Santa Monica Pier, when there is a 200' wave just 10 miles offshore.

Druckenmiller says that he this current debt situation is much worse than he had previously imagined 10 years ago.

---

The combination of people retiring younger and people living longer creates an unsustainable situation. I wish I had a solution. One option is to encourage more immigration. Given the Republicans opposition to illegal immigration maybe a compromise solution is making legal immigration much easier.

However, it is not clear if immigration will solve the problem or if immigrants will end up using more than their share of social services as well when, for example, their parents are also allowed to migrate.

My parents are all on Medicare and while it is a wonderful program there aren't really any checks and balances to make sure they pay their fair share. One parent has been in and out of the hospital for anxiety mainly (keeps going to the ER every time there are heart palpitations despite a cardiologist giving the all clear) and each time the bill is thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands. The out of pocket is nothing.

As a taxpayer I am not happy at this abuse of the system. There has to be a way to force a reimbursement of that medical
care or else make it a lot cheaper. The same is true for nursing homes. The government pays way more money to put someone in a home than to provide the care they need at their own home. There is a realization of this but change is slow. My parent would be a lot better off hiring a caregiver from a third world country under the table - and many people do that. It would be cheaper, too. It isn't legal but maybe there is a compromise.

Can we ship all of our elderly to India sort of like the British shipped their prisoners to Australia? Maybe a Logan's Run style euthanasia at a certain age? (I kid.)

---

Unfortunately politicians aren't incentivized to solve long-term problems and I don't see that ever changing. The sorts of people that go into politics may have initially believed in doing what's best for the country's future, but that quickly gets beat out of them when they try to win races.

Americans are fickle and want what they want when they want it. They won't admit it but almost every American would gladly accept a 1% tax cut now in exchange for a 1% tax increase in the future. When that future inevitably arises, they won't accept the tax increase.

I know that a lot of "fiscal conservatives" are angrily furrowing their brows at my post because they think they are different, but I haven't heard them jumping up and down to increase taxes now to reduce the deficit, quite the opposite. The supposed fiscal conservatives have increased spending dramatically under each GOP fiscal conservative president. The vast majority of debt ceiling increases have been under GOP rule (49 to 29).

As for increasing legal immigration as a compromise, that gave me a good laugh. The GOP does not in any way want to increase immigration, regardless of what it does to our economy. They are not proposing an increase in H1-Bs (in fact they did the opposite) or any other form of legal immigration. They are focused on increasing the white birth rate because they are focused on the great replacement BS theory.

Heck - their standard bearer state - Florida - is criminalizing people who come into contact with illegal immigrants. Give a friend a ride and you could be committing a felony. Does that signal that the GOP is willing to have a real conversation about immigration?

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Spending on seniors will reach 100% of federal tax revenues by 2040 based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, including interest expense.

Interestingly enough, the current $31 trillion US debt load doesn't account for future entitlement payments. Accounting for the present value of that burden, the debt load is more like $200 trillion.

Clearly, the big issue is entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which without cuts today will have to be slashed in the future.

As Stanley Druckenmiller pointed out the other day in a speech at the USC Business School, worrying over the debt-ceiling is kind of like obsessing over a 30' wave that is about to hit the Santa Monica Pier, when there is a 200' wave just 10 miles offshore.

Druckenmiller says that he this current debt situation is much worse than he had previously imagined 10 years ago.

---

The combination of people retiring younger and people living longer creates an unsustainable situation. I wish I had a solution. One option is to encourage more immigration. Given the Republicans opposition to illegal immigration maybe a compromise solution is making legal immigration much easier.

However, it is not clear if immigration will solve the problem or if immigrants will end up using more than their share of social services as well when, for example, their parents are also allowed to migrate.

My parents are all on Medicare and while it is a wonderful program there aren't really any checks and balances to make sure they pay their fair share. One parent has been in and out of the hospital for anxiety mainly (keeps going to the ER every time there are heart palpitations despite a cardiologist giving the all clear) and each time the bill is thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands. The out of pocket is nothing.

As a taxpayer I am not happy at this abuse of the system. There has to be a way to force a reimbursement of that medical
care or else make it a lot cheaper. The same is true for nursing homes. The government pays way more money to put someone in a home than to provide the care they need at their own home. There is a realization of this but change is slow. My parent would be a lot better off hiring a caregiver from a third world country under the table - and many people do that. It would be cheaper, too. It isn't legal but maybe there is a compromise.

Can we ship all of our elderly to India sort of like the British shipped their prisoners to Australia? Maybe a Logan's Run style euthanasia at a certain age? (I kid.)

---

Social Security needs small fixes relative to health care spending. But we aren't really serious about health care spending until we adopt a less privatized model nationally. There are a ton of different ways to go and things to argue about. The reality is, they are all cheaper than our system.

The national debt is usually talked about as a problem for average Americans. The reality is that is a mostly a problem for the affluent and wealthy with high income earners taking the brunt of things currently. We won't get traction on this until the affluent and wealthy get serious about national healthcare. or high income earners get serious about the need to tax wealth. I trust and hope average Americans will run out of town any politician that tries to reduce social security or Medicare or Medicaid (without a real national healthcare fix).

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

My parents are all on Medicare and while it is a wonderful program there aren't really any checks and balances to make sure they pay their fair share. One parent has been in and out of the hospital for anxiety mainly (keeps going to the ER every time there are heart palpitations despite a cardiologist giving the all clear) and each time the bill is thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands. The out of pocket is nothing.

As a taxpayer I am not happy at this abuse of the system. There has to be a way to force a reimbursement of that medical care or else make it a lot cheaper.

---

My Mom is in her 80's and diabetic and on a handful of medications.
Medicare doesnt cover everything. Hence her $230 a month Medicare supplemental thru UNH.

---

People say that and in fact my mom has supplemental insurance to cover things like dental.

It is not clear to me what Medicare doesn't over other than some medications (and dental).

However, in my experience it is pretty comprehensive in terms of what it will cover and there almost never needs to be any prior authorization by Medicare. The provider just orders whatever and it has always been covered with no charge - so far anyway.

My dad had a very expensive neck surgery which cost over $300K and his out-of-pocket was $0 and he has no supplemental plan.

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

My parents are all on Medicare and while it is a wonderful program there aren't really any checks and balances to make sure they pay their fair share. One parent has been in and out of the hospital for anxiety mainly (keeps going to the ER every time there are heart palpitations despite a cardiologist giving the all clear) and each time the bill is thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands. The out of pocket is nothing.

As a taxpayer I am not happy at this abuse of the system. There has to be a way to force a reimbursement of that medical care or else make it a lot cheaper.

---

My Mom is in her 80's and diabetic and on a handful of medications.
Medicare doesnt cover everything. Hence her $230 a month Medicare supplemental thru UNH.

---

People say that and in fact my mom has supplemental insurance to cover things like dental.

It is not clear to me what Medicare doesn't over other than some medications (and dental).

However, in my experience it is pretty comprehensive in terms of what it will cover and there almost never needs to be any prior authorization by Medicare. The provider just orders whatever and it has always been covered with no charge - so far anyway.

My dad had a very expensive neck surgery which cost over $300K and his out-of-pocket was $0 and he has no supplemental plan.

---

As someone old enough to have Medicare, you need the supplement to cover what can be significant out of picket expenses under regular Medicare. Part A (hospital, other types of facilities, etc.) doesn't cover certain types of procedures or things that occur and there are places such as Medicare website to find out what those are. Part B pays which is services, coves only 80% of the costs, and again there are exceptions to coverage. Big thing I have found is that a lot of tests/labs are not covered because some labs don't take medicare or the tests are only partially covered. Part D which is meds, there are huge gaps in coverage, and discounts given on certain meds are not extended to Medicare making these meds costs prohibitive or with a trip to Canada. The classic example is biologicals, which are used against auto-immune diseases such as arthritis. These meds can run $50K a year with the supplement and $150K a year without. Even the government medicare website recommends getting the supplement. The premiums are not that expensive. I might remind people that Medicare also is not free - you pay premiums based on income levels.

I had spine surgery rather recently. The initial bills were over $1 million, then Medicare (or your insurer if you have not reached the age) knocks down all the bills down (hospital, labs, doctors, meds, etc.) and picks up most of the tab. In my last spine surgery, medicare and the supplement paid around $200K and I paid around $2K even having the supplement. I doubt your mother paid zero because she had to pay a large portion of the doctors, tests/labs, meds and home care without the supplement, and would also still pay for for some portion of all the meds they load into you even with supplement.

IMO you are giving horrible advice to people to not get the supplement. Almost everyone that can afford a supplement gets them (83% of those with Medicare: Medigap (34%), employer-sponsored retiree health coverage (29%), or Medicaid (20%)). I an not aware of any organization that advocates against not buying supplements if you can afford them.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/07/considering-basic-medicare-with-no-backup-insurance-is-a-big-mistake.html?__source=sharebar|email&par=sharebar
.

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

My parents are all on Medicare and while it is a wonderful program there aren't really any checks and balances to make sure they pay their fair share. One parent has been in and out of the hospital for anxiety mainly (keeps going to the ER every time there are heart palpitations despite a cardiologist giving the all clear) and each time the bill is thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands. The out of pocket is nothing.

As a taxpayer I am not happy at this abuse of the system. There has to be a way to force a reimbursement of that medical care or else make it a lot cheaper.

---

My Mom is in her 80's and diabetic and on a handful of medications.
Medicare doesnt cover everything. Hence her $230 a month Medicare supplemental thru UNH.

---

People say that and in fact my mom has supplemental insurance to cover things like dental.

It is not clear to me what Medicare doesn't over other than some medications (and dental).

---

You'd be surprised to learn what Medicare DOES NOT COVER.
And I'm not talking about Dental.

Not only does my Mom pay $230 a month for her UNH Supplemental, but she also pays $200 a month for an AARP RX Supplemental that covers her meds. - - - As 'Furd indicated above, there are massive "gaps" in coverage.

I'd bet everything that I own that your Dad and his neck surgery cost him money.
It was not "free" as you claim.

This is getting off topic, but while Medicare is far from perfect, the economics and benefits are so far better than the present insurance system, I think Medicare ultimately will be extended to lower age groups, even if that means small increases in medicare premiums to make the system sustainable. Having quasi-monopoly power as a customer drives costs down dramatically.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

My parents are all on Medicare and while it is a wonderful program there aren't really any checks and balances to make sure they pay their fair share. One parent has been in and out of the hospital for anxiety mainly (keeps going to the ER every time there are heart palpitations despite a cardiologist giving the all clear) and each time the bill is thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands. The out of pocket is nothing.

As a taxpayer I am not happy at this abuse of the system. There has to be a way to force a reimbursement of that medical care or else make it a lot cheaper.

---

My Mom is in her 80's and diabetic and on a handful of medications.
Medicare doesnt cover everything. Hence her $230 a month Medicare supplemental thru UNH.

---

People say that and in fact my mom has supplemental insurance to cover things like dental.

It is not clear to me what Medicare doesn't over other than some medications (and dental).

However, in my experience it is pretty comprehensive in terms of what it will cover and there almost never needs to be any prior authorization by Medicare. The provider just orders whatever and it has always been covered with no charge - so far anyway.

My dad had a very expensive neck surgery which cost over $300K and his out-of-pocket was $0 and he has no supplemental plan.

---

As someone old enough to have Medicare, you need the supplement to cover what can be significant out of picket expenses under regular Medicare. Part A (hospital, other types of facilities, etc.) doesn't cover certain types of procedures or things that occur and there are places such as Medicare website to find out what those are. Part B pays which is services, coves only 80% of the costs, and again there are exceptions to coverage. Big thing I have found is that a lot of tests/labs are not covered because some labs don't take medicare or the tests are only partially covered. Part D which is meds, there are huge gaps in coverage, and discounts given on certain meds are not extended to Medicare making these meds costs prohibitive or with a trip to Canada. The classic example is biologicals, which are used against auto-immune diseases such as arthritis. These meds can run $50K a year with the supplement and $150K a year without. Even the government medicare website recommends getting the supplement. The premiums are not that expensive. I might remind people that Medicare also is not free - you pay premiums based on income levels.

I had spine surgery rather recently. The initial bills were over $1 million, then Medicare (or your insurer if you have not reached the age) knocks down all the bills down (hospital, labs, doctors, meds, etc.) and picks up most of the tab. In my last spine surgery, medicare and the supplement paid around $200K and I paid around $2K even having the supplement. I doubt your mother paid zero because she had to pay a large portion of the doctors, tests/labs, meds and home care without the supplement, and would also still pay for for some portion of all the meds they load into you even with supplement.

IMO you are giving horrible advice to people to not get the supplement. Almost everyone that can afford a supplement gets them (83% of those with Medicare: Medigap (34%), employer-sponsored retiree health coverage (29%), or Medicaid (20%)). I an not aware of any organization that advocates against not buying supplements if you can afford them.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/07/considering-basic-medicare-with-no-backup-insurance-is-a-big-mistake.html?__source=sharebar|email&par=sharebar
.

---

I am not giving advice. I am just not seeing any value-added in the situations I have experience with. The insurance is for-profit I assume and so they are pooling risks and premiums. That means a lot of people pay premiums for nothing. YMMV.

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

My parents are all on Medicare and while it is a wonderful program there aren't really any checks and balances to make sure they pay their fair share. One parent has been in and out of the hospital for anxiety mainly (keeps going to the ER every time there are heart palpitations despite a cardiologist giving the all clear) and each time the bill is thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands. The out of pocket is nothing.

As a taxpayer I am not happy at this abuse of the system. There has to be a way to force a reimbursement of that medical care or else make it a lot cheaper.

---

My Mom is in her 80's and diabetic and on a handful of medications.
Medicare doesnt cover everything. Hence her $230 a month Medicare supplemental thru UNH.

---

People say that and in fact my mom has supplemental insurance to cover things like dental.

It is not clear to me what Medicare doesn't over other than some medications (and dental).

---

You'd be surprised to learn what Medicare DOES NOT COVER.
And I'm not talking about Dental.

Not only does my Mom pay $230 a month for her UNH Supplemental, but she also pays $200 a month for an AARP RX Supplemental that covers her meds. - - - As 'Furd indicated above, there are massive "gaps" in coverage.

I'd bet everything that I own that your Dad and his neck surgery cost him money.
It was not "free" as you claim.

---

Completely free but none of my parents have chronic health conditions like diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis or cancer etc.

But you are missing the point of my argument which is that even if someone pays a deductible or a percentage the vast majority of the cost is still being paid by the government and the government is pretty loose about making sure the procedures are necessary, collecting money up front, etc

Private insurers require a zillion preauthorizations and referrals and so on. Not so with Medicare. You just show up and get treated, tested, whatever. You don't even need a referral to see a specialist. Go see all the specialists you want and get all the tests you want. Free. It is great for the elderly but that has to change.

dimitrig said:

---

I am not giving advice. I am just not seeing any value-added in the situations I have experience with. The insurance is for-profit I assume and so they are pooling risks and premiums. That means a lot of people pay premiums for nothing. YMMV.

---

I'm sorry, but I dont believe that you really know what you are talking about when it comes to Medicare, or Medicare Supplementals. I will just leave it at that.

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

I am not giving advice. I am just not seeing any value-added in the situations I have experience with. The insurance is for-profit I assume and so they are pooling risks and premiums. That means a lot of people pay premiums for nothing. YMMV.

---

I'm sorry, but I dont believe that you really know what you are talking about when it comes to Medicare, or Medicare Supplementals. I will just leave it at that.

---

My experience with Medicare Advantage is that in the case of the people I care for (and I manage the health care of three adults on Medicare including paying all their bills) they seem to be a luxury and not a necessity. In fact, from what I have seen with my mother's (she insists on having one because of all her dental issues) it has mostly been a hindrance in terms of the insurance company placing a lot of restrictions on her health care not to mention the cost of the premiums. For example, she moved and then she could not get the same level of care in her new county. If she didn't have the supplemental it wouldn't have been an issue.

Medicare Advantage is more likely to require prior authorizations, referrals to see a specialist, making you try cheaper treatment plans before approving more expensive ones, etc. because it is managed care. It is also likely to make you seek care within network which limits your choice of providers.

I have never paid a single dime for health care on behalf of my loved ones. Sometimes I pay co-pays for medications. Now dental, hearing aids, things like that... that's a different story but for basic medical care, health screenings, urgent care and ER visits, even major surgeries and skilled nursing has all been free even without any supplemental. There are definitely drugs that Medicare won't pay for and if you need those then supplemental plans make sense no doubt. The point is that it is not one size fits all.

Question:
Why do you think those companies are advertising on television all the time to get people to sign up? Because it costs them money?

"A recent Kaiser study found that about half of all Medicare Advantage enrollees would end up paying more than those in traditional Medicare for a seven-day hospital stay."

Link: https://www.consumerreports.org/medicare/pros-and-cons-of-medicare-advantage-a6834167849/

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

My parents are all on Medicare and while it is a wonderful program there aren't really any checks and balances to make sure they pay their fair share. One parent has been in and out of the hospital for anxiety mainly (keeps going to the ER every time there are heart palpitations despite a cardiologist giving the all clear) and each time the bill is thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands. The out of pocket is nothing.

As a taxpayer I am not happy at this abuse of the system. There has to be a way to force a reimbursement of that medical care or else make it a lot cheaper.

---

My Mom is in her 80's and diabetic and on a handful of medications.
Medicare doesnt cover everything. Hence her $230 a month Medicare supplemental thru UNH.

---

People say that and in fact my mom has supplemental insurance to cover things like dental.

It is not clear to me what Medicare doesn't over other than some medications (and dental).

---

You'd be surprised to learn what Medicare DOES NOT COVER.
And I'm not talking about Dental.

Not only does my Mom pay $230 a month for her UNH Supplemental, but she also pays $200 a month for an AARP RX Supplemental that covers her meds. - - - As 'Furd indicated above, there are massive "gaps" in coverage.

I'd bet everything that I own that your Dad and his neck surgery cost him money.
It was not "free" as you claim.

---

Completely free but none of my parents have chronic health conditions like diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis or cancer etc.

But you are missing the point of my argument which is that even if someone pays a deductible or a percentage the vast majority of the cost is still being paid by the government and the government is pretty loose about making sure the procedures are necessary, collecting money up front, etc

Private insurers require a zillion preauthorizations and referrals and so on. Not so with Medicare. You just show up and get treated, tested, whatever. You don't even need a referral to see a specialist. Go see all the specialists you want and get all the tests you want. Free. It is great for the elderly but that has to change.

---

Your do realize that the supplements follow Meicare';s decisions on whether an expense is legit and thus follow Meicare guidelines to the letter. If Medicare approves it, they approve it. I'm afraid I'm with Diablo on this. Not only for my wife and I but the company we run and our employees 65 and older, have never had an experience with any type of surgery where everything was free or the supplemental insurance had to pay the cost. I hope people who read this thread and are having to make medical decisions appreciate that.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

My parents are all on Medicare and while it is a wonderful program there aren't really any checks and balances to make sure they pay their fair share. One parent has been in and out of the hospital for anxiety mainly (keeps going to the ER every time there are heart palpitations despite a cardiologist giving the all clear) and each time the bill is thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands. The out of pocket is nothing.

As a taxpayer I am not happy at this abuse of the system. There has to be a way to force a reimbursement of that medical care or else make it a lot cheaper.

---

My Mom is in her 80's and diabetic and on a handful of medications.
Medicare doesnt cover everything. Hence her $230 a month Medicare supplemental thru UNH.

---

People say that and in fact my mom has supplemental insurance to cover things like dental.

It is not clear to me what Medicare doesn't over other than some medications (and dental).

---

You'd be surprised to learn what Medicare DOES NOT COVER.
And I'm not talking about Dental.

Not only does my Mom pay $230 a month for her UNH Supplemental, but she also pays $200 a month for an AARP RX Supplemental that covers her meds. - - - As 'Furd indicated above, there are massive "gaps" in coverage.

I'd bet everything that I own that your Dad and his neck surgery cost him money.
It was not "free" as you claim.

---

Completely free but none of my parents have chronic health conditions like diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis or cancer etc.

But you are missing the point of my argument which is that even if someone pays a deductible or a percentage the vast majority of the cost is still being paid by the government and the government is pretty loose about making sure the procedures are necessary, collecting money up front, etc

Private insurers require a zillion preauthorizations and referrals and so on. Not so with Medicare. You just show up and get treated, tested, whatever. You don't even need a referral to see a specialist. Go see all the specialists you want and get all the tests you want. Free. It is great for the elderly but that has to change.

---

Your do realize that the supplements follow Meicare';s decisions on whether an expense is legit and thus follow Meicare guidelines to the letter. If Medicare approves it, they approve it. I'm afraid I'm with Diablo on this. Not only for my wife and I but the company we run and our employees 65 and older, have never had an experience with any type of surgery where everything was free or the supplemental insurance had to pay the cost. I hope people who read this thread and are having to make medical decisions appreciate that.

---

You are missing the major point I am making.

You quote:

"I had spine surgery rather recently. The initial bills were over $1 million, then Medicare (or your insurer if you have not reached the age) knocks down all the bills down (hospital, labs, doctors, meds, etc.) and picks up most of the tab. In my last spine surgery, medicare and the supplement paid around $200K and I paid around $2K even having the supplement."

So you had a $1M surgery and you paid $2K for it. I would pretty much call that free for purposes of this discussion.

Okay so you had supplemental so your premiums were another however much - probably not THAT much.

The point here is that the difference was made up by taxpayers and people paying supplemental Medicare premiums that don't need to use it. If every person on Medicare needed your surgery we would have a problem and the reality is that with an aging population lots of people do. This is not sustainable

.

DiabloWags said:

---

Spending on seniors will reach 100% of federal tax revenues by 2040 based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, including interest expense.

Interestingly enough, the current $31 trillion US debt load doesn't account for future entitlement payments. Accounting for the present value of that burden, the debt load is more like $200 trillion.

Clearly, the big issue is entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which without cuts today will have to be slashed in the future.

As Stanley Druckenmiller pointed out the other day in a speech at the USC Business School, worrying over the debt-ceiling is kind of like obsessing over a 30' wave that is about to hit the Santa Monica Pier, when there is a 200' wave just 10 miles offshore.

Druckenmiller says that he this current debt situation is much worse than he had previously imagined 10 years ago.

---

Why are you talking about Social Security & Medicare (what you call "entitlements") and the National Debt from the General Fund as if they had anything to do with each other?

Both Social Security and Medicare are completely separate from the General Fund. They're not a part of the Budget. Their funding is completely separate.

There is no crisis with Social Security. All we need to do is raise the cap, so that income over $132,000 (or whatever the cap is these days. Cap it at $200k or $300k, and it's good for the foreseeable future. Done!

For everything else, just go back to taxing corporate earnings at 35%. Done!

Like I said before, the GOP never has a problem with deficits when one of them is in the WH. The GOP-controlled Congress raise the debt ceiling 3 times under Trump, with no issues whatsoever.

So go ahead with your tantrum, but don't expect anyone else to give a rat's a--. You guys should've thought about this sort of thing when you passed $trillions in tax cuts & spent more $trillions on unnecessary wars.

How you gonna pay for that, hmm?

Remember Dick Cheney telling us that "Deficits don't matter?" Well, they do. Except when the GOP is in charge. Seriously -- have you considered closing a couple hundred U.S. military bases, or saving $16 billion a year on subsidies to oil companies (as if they need subsidies as an incentive for producing oil!)?

You & I both know that when the day of reckoning draws near, the corporations & oligarchs who stand to lose the most are going to call Kevin McCarthy, read him the riot act, and tell him to raise the damn debt ceiling NOW, & stop effing around with the economy.

Unfortunately, Biden caved -- he agreed to negotiate with the terrorists. Bad move.

Interesting how Drunkenmiller and other so-called economists & "experts" run around like headless chickens, claiming that the sky will fall if the U.S. Government pays $$ to American Workers & retirees, but shoveling more $$$ for corporate welfare & forever wars is somehow going to be seen as more "responsible" by voters in 2024.

I'll be putting Drunkenmiller, Kevin McCarthy, and the entire GOP on IGNORE until they do what they were going to do anyway, and just raise the damn debt ceiling, and move on.

dimitrig said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

My parents are all on Medicare and while it is a wonderful program there aren't really any checks and balances to make sure they pay their fair share. One parent has been in and out of the hospital for anxiety mainly (keeps going to the ER every time there are heart palpitations despite a cardiologist giving the all clear) and each time the bill is thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands. The out of pocket is nothing.

As a taxpayer I am not happy at this abuse of the system. There has to be a way to force a reimbursement of that medical care or else make it a lot cheaper.

---

My Mom is in her 80's and diabetic and on a handful of medications.
Medicare doesnt cover everything. Hence her $230 a month Medicare supplemental thru UNH.

---

People say that and in fact my mom has supplemental insurance to cover things like dental.

It is not clear to me what Medicare doesn't over other than some medications (and dental).

---

You'd be surprised to learn what Medicare DOES NOT COVER.
And I'm not talking about Dental.

Not only does my Mom pay $230 a month for her UNH Supplemental, but she also pays $200 a month for an AARP RX Supplemental that covers her meds. - - - As 'Furd indicated above, there are massive "gaps" in coverage.

I'd bet everything that I own that your Dad and his neck surgery cost him money.
It was not "free" as you claim.

---

Completely free but none of my parents have chronic health conditions like diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis or cancer etc.

But you are missing the point of my argument which is that even if someone pays a deductible or a percentage the vast majority of the cost is still being paid by the government and the government is pretty loose about making sure the procedures are necessary, collecting money up front, etc

Private insurers require a zillion preauthorizations and referrals and so on. Not so with Medicare. You just show up and get treated, tested, whatever. You don't even need a referral to see a specialist. Go see all the specialists you want and get all the tests you want. Free. It is great for the elderly but that has to change.

---

Your do realize that the supplements follow Meicare';s decisions on whether an expense is legit and thus follow Meicare guidelines to the letter. If Medicare approves it, they approve it. I'm afraid I'm with Diablo on this. Not only for my wife and I but the company we run and our employees 65 and older, have never had an experience with any type of surgery where everything was free or the supplemental insurance had to pay the cost. I hope people who read this thread and are having to make medical decisions appreciate that.

---

You are missing the major point I am making.

You quote:

"I had spine surgery rather recently. The initial bills were over $1 million, then Medicare (or your insurer if you have not reached the age) knocks down all the bills down (hospital, labs, doctors, meds, etc.) and picks up most of the tab. In my last spine surgery, medicare and the supplement paid around $200K and I paid around $2K even having the supplement."

So you had a $1M surgery and you paid $2K for it. I would pretty much call that free for purposes of this discussion.

Okay so you had supplemental so your premiums were another however much - probably not THAT much.

The point here is that the difference was made up by taxpayers and people paying supplemental Medicare premiums that don't need to use it. If every person on Medicare needed your surgery we would have a problem and the reality is that with an aging population lots of people do. This is not sustainable

.

---

I respectfully disagree, the $800K discount Medicare insists on is paid by no one. The hospital inflates the bill knowing that their contracts with insurers or Medicare will lead to astronomical writer-offs of astronomical over charges (think $20 per Tylenol pill). The difference between my paying $200K and $2K is due to supplemental insurance primarily. The market for supplemental insurance is dominated by a few insurers such as AARP and the can make money on volume while charging fairly small premiums, and taking on everyone that qualifies for Medicare.

I might add your equivocation that $2K is really free might not be what your parent would think if they are writing the check; however, in your case without the supplemental insurance they are writing checks for $200,000. I'm really not tracking any of your discussion here.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

My parents are all on Medicare and while it is a wonderful program there aren't really any checks and balances to make sure they pay their fair share. One parent has been in and out of the hospital for anxiety mainly (keeps going to the ER every time there are heart palpitations despite a cardiologist giving the all clear) and each time the bill is thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands. The out of pocket is nothing.

As a taxpayer I am not happy at this abuse of the system. There has to be a way to force a reimbursement of that medical care or else make it a lot cheaper.

---

My Mom is in her 80's and diabetic and on a handful of medications.
Medicare doesnt cover everything. Hence her $230 a month Medicare supplemental thru UNH.

---

People say that and in fact my mom has supplemental insurance to cover things like dental.

It is not clear to me what Medicare doesn't over other than some medications (and dental).

---

You'd be surprised to learn what Medicare DOES NOT COVER.
And I'm not talking about Dental.

Not only does my Mom pay $230 a month for her UNH Supplemental, but she also pays $200 a month for an AARP RX Supplemental that covers her meds. - - - As 'Furd indicated above, there are massive "gaps" in coverage.

I'd bet everything that I own that your Dad and his neck surgery cost him money.
It was not "free" as you claim.

---

Completely free but none of my parents have chronic health conditions like diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis or cancer etc.

But you are missing the point of my argument which is that even if someone pays a deductible or a percentage the vast majority of the cost is still being paid by the government and the government is pretty loose about making sure the procedures are necessary, collecting money up front, etc

Private insurers require a zillion preauthorizations and referrals and so on. Not so with Medicare. You just show up and get treated, tested, whatever. You don't even need a referral to see a specialist. Go see all the specialists you want and get all the tests you want. Free. It is great for the elderly but that has to change.

---

Your do realize that the supplements follow Meicare';s decisions on whether an expense is legit and thus follow Meicare guidelines to the letter. If Medicare approves it, they approve it. I'm afraid I'm with Diablo on this. Not only for my wife and I but the company we run and our employees 65 and older, have never had an experience with any type of surgery where everything was free or the supplemental insurance had to pay the cost. I hope people who read this thread and are having to make medical decisions appreciate that.

---

You are missing the major point I am making.

You quote:

"I had spine surgery rather recently. The initial bills were over $1 million, then Medicare (or your insurer if you have not reached the age) knocks down all the bills down (hospital, labs, doctors, meds, etc.) and picks up most of the tab. In my last spine surgery, medicare and the supplement paid around $200K and I paid around $2K even having the supplement."

So you had a $1M surgery and you paid $2K for it. I would pretty much call that free for purposes of this discussion.

Okay so you had supplemental so your premiums were another however much - probably not THAT much.

The point here is that the difference was made up by taxpayers and people paying supplemental Medicare premiums that don't need to use it. If every person on Medicare needed your surgery we would have a problem and the reality is that with an aging population lots of people do. This is not sustainable

.

---

I respectfully disagree, the $800K discount Medicare insists on is paid by no one. The hospital inflates the bill knowing that their contracts with insurers or Medicare will lead to astronomical writer-offs of astronomical over charges (think $20 per Tylenol pill). The difference between my paying $200K and $2K is due to supplemental insurance primarily. The market for supplemental insurance is dominated by a few insurers such as AARP and the can make money on volume while charging fairly small premiums, and taking on everyone that qualifies for Medicare.

I might add your equivocation that $2K is really free might not be what your parent would think if they are writing the check; however, in your case without the supplemental insurance they are writing checks for $200,000. I'm really not tracking any of your discussion here.

---

If the surgery's $200K and you paid $2K then who paid the other $198K?

The answer isn't your supplemental insurance premiums. Medicare paid most of it and Medicare means taxpayers.

The point I am making is that Medicare costs need to be reigned in. One way to do that is to make people on Medicare pay more of their own medical bills.

Medicare is great insurance but we can't afford it with the current demographics.

I think that because it is so liberal in its payouts it is abused by patients - not necessarily in a nefarious way but simply that when something is free or cheap then you use more of it. It is also abused by doctors who know that they can run a lot of diagnostics and get paid for it.

I have seen first hand how easily and readily Medicare pays out tens of thousands of dollars in claims and I compare that with my own "pretty good" private insurance.

Some people advocate that we should have Medicare for all but I think it would just make things worse unless there were more checks and balances added. Medicare is a Cadillac health plan. I wish I had it instead of my own insurance which costs me over $1000/month despite me being at an age where I rarely need health care.

dimitrig said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

My parents are all on Medicare and while it is a wonderful program there aren't really any checks and balances to make sure they pay their fair share. One parent has been in and out of the hospital for anxiety mainly (keeps going to the ER every time there are heart palpitations despite a cardiologist giving the all clear) and each time the bill is thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands. The out of pocket is nothing.

As a taxpayer I am not happy at this abuse of the system. There has to be a way to force a reimbursement of that medical care or else make it a lot cheaper.

---

My Mom is in her 80's and diabetic and on a handful of medications.
Medicare doesnt cover everything. Hence her $230 a month Medicare supplemental thru UNH.

---

People say that and in fact my mom has supplemental insurance to cover things like dental.

It is not clear to me what Medicare doesn't over other than some medications (and dental).

---

You'd be surprised to learn what Medicare DOES NOT COVER.
And I'm not talking about Dental.

Not only does my Mom pay $230 a month for her UNH Supplemental, but she also pays $200 a month for an AARP RX Supplemental that covers her meds. - - - As 'Furd indicated above, there are massive "gaps" in coverage.

I'd bet everything that I own that your Dad and his neck surgery cost him money.
It was not "free" as you claim.

---

Completely free but none of my parents have chronic health conditions like diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis or cancer etc.

But you are missing the point of my argument which is that even if someone pays a deductible or a percentage the vast majority of the cost is still being paid by the government and the government is pretty loose about making sure the procedures are necessary, collecting money up front, etc

Private insurers require a zillion preauthorizations and referrals and so on. Not so with Medicare. You just show up and get treated, tested, whatever. You don't even need a referral to see a specialist. Go see all the specialists you want and get all the tests you want. Free. It is great for the elderly but that has to change.

---

Your do realize that the supplements follow Meicare';s decisions on whether an expense is legit and thus follow Meicare guidelines to the letter. If Medicare approves it, they approve it. I'm afraid I'm with Diablo on this. Not only for my wife and I but the company we run and our employees 65 and older, have never had an experience with any type of surgery where everything was free or the supplemental insurance had to pay the cost. I hope people who read this thread and are having to make medical decisions appreciate that.

---

You are missing the major point I am making.

You quote:

"I had spine surgery rather recently. The initial bills were over $1 million, then Medicare (or your insurer if you have not reached the age) knocks down all the bills down (hospital, labs, doctors, meds, etc.) and picks up most of the tab. In my last spine surgery, medicare and the supplement paid around $200K and I paid around $2K even having the supplement."

So you had a $1M surgery and you paid $2K for it. I would pretty much call that free for purposes of this discussion.

Okay so you had supplemental so your premiums were another however much - probably not THAT much.

The point here is that the difference was made up by taxpayers and people paying supplemental Medicare premiums that don't need to use it. If every person on Medicare needed your surgery we would have a problem and the reality is that with an aging population lots of people do. This is not sustainable

---

Medicare isn't sustainable??

I would say that having seniors choose between paying full market rate for private health insurance (and going bankrupt), or going uninsured is far less sustainable. Don't we have enough medical bankruptcies as it is? Are you wanting more homeless senior citizens??

I'll tell you what -- if you're looking for ways to save money & prevent waste, fraud, & abuse, why not check in with the Pentagon & ask them why they can't find 61% of their assets. We're spending nearly a $trillion on "defense" -- every year -- but no one is attacking us. We've built a massive, global military empire, with hundreds of bases overseas, but I don't remember any public discussion leading to this aggressive strategy, why it was necessary, or how much it was going to cost US, the taxpayers.

Anything that these ideologues are trying to cut from OUR Social Security & Medicare is pocket change to the DoD. We'll know that these guys are serious about spending cuts when they cut "defense" and completely unnecessary oil subsidies.

Please bear in mind that the U.S. is the only developed nation in the world that DOESN'T have universal health care for its citizens. Instead, we have a system of private, for-profit insurance that's so dysfunctional that Americans pay 2x more than anyone else in the world for poorer outcomes. In addition, hospitals & clinics have to employ over 2 million people nationwide just to plead with these insurers to pay the claims that they should pay.

Only in America.

DiabloWags said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

BTW, this is exactly where we were after the October, 1929 market crash. Nobody had money to spend. The banks collapsed. The few who were wealthy bought up the assets of those who needed cash to survive. No reason to expect anything different this time.

---

In a previous post, you've said that the economy and stock market will "crash" worse than 2008.
How low do you see the S&P going this year?
And why?

Let me ask you something, how long do you expect to hold the TZA?

How long have you been holding your current position?

---

I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions above Mr. Cbbass.

wifeisafurd said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

.

---

You guys are missing the point here.

The fairness or unfairness of income inequality are irrelevant. The mechanisms of it, and the politics of it, are irrelevant. There's no need to discuss it if you don't want to.

But what IS relevant is the collapse of Aggregate Demand. What happens when the vast majority of Worker/Customers can't afford to purchase the goods & services that they used to?

Whatever your political & economic views are, it's easy to see that the collapse of Aggregate Demand isn't good for businesses.

But that's exactly where Capital and policymakers are taking us, no?

BTW, this is exactly where we were after the October, 1929 market crash. Nobody had money to spend. The banks collapsed. The few who were wealthy bought up the assets of those who needed cash to survive. No reason to expect anything different this time.

So if you're Jamie Dimon or Jeff Bezos, you're probably looking forward to some bargain-hunting, and expanding your asset base for pennies on the dollar. But for everyone else, it's going to be a wipeout, with millions suffering and dying worldwide. And none of these guys care in the least.

"I want my fair share -- and that's all of it."
-- Charles Koch - oligarch / oil billionaire / co-founder of the Cato Institute / huuge donor to Americans for Prosperity, American Enterprise Institute, Ayn Rand Institute, Pacific Legal Foundation, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

---

Okay, you say income inequality doesn't matter. Nor do politics or media, etc. What matters is what is in bold.

Let's play your game:

Literally from the FED website:

"Aggregate Demand represents the total demand for these goods and services at any given price level during the specified period. Aggregate Demand eventually equals gross domestic product (GDP) because the two metrics are calculated in the same way. As a result, aggregate demand and GDP increase or decrease together."

So during this horrible period of capital smashing labor, show me when Aggregate Demand (which the governmet calculates as GDP) has shrunk so dramatically? Show everyone still reading this thread, the starting GDP level when labor starting losing out and where it is now as this rape of labor continues. I think you are going to find Aggregate Demand is pretty robust during the period.

---

I'm still waiting for Mr. Cbbass to answer your question above as well.

Bump.

dimitrig said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

My parents are all on Medicare and while it is a wonderful program there aren't really any checks and balances to make sure they pay their fair share. One parent has been in and out of the hospital for anxiety mainly (keeps going to the ER every time there are heart palpitations despite a cardiologist giving the all clear) and each time the bill is thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands. The out of pocket is nothing.

As a taxpayer I am not happy at this abuse of the system. There has to be a way to force a reimbursement of that medical care or else make it a lot cheaper.

---

My Mom is in her 80's and diabetic and on a handful of medications.
Medicare doesnt cover everything. Hence her $230 a month Medicare supplemental thru UNH.

---

People say that and in fact my mom has supplemental insurance to cover things like dental.

It is not clear to me what Medicare doesn't over other than some medications (and dental).

---

You'd be surprised to learn what Medicare DOES NOT COVER.
And I'm not talking about Dental.

Not only does my Mom pay $230 a month for her UNH Supplemental, but she also pays $200 a month for an AARP RX Supplemental that covers her meds. - - - As 'Furd indicated above, there are massive "gaps" in coverage.

I'd bet everything that I own that your Dad and his neck surgery cost him money.
It was not "free" as you claim.

---

Completely free but none of my parents have chronic health conditions like diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis or cancer etc.

But you are missing the point of my argument which is that even if someone pays a deductible or a percentage the vast majority of the cost is still being paid by the government and the government is pretty loose about making sure the procedures are necessary, collecting money up front, etc

Private insurers require a zillion preauthorizations and referrals and so on. Not so with Medicare. You just show up and get treated, tested, whatever. You don't even need a referral to see a specialist. Go see all the specialists you want and get all the tests you want. Free. It is great for the elderly but that has to change.

---

Your do realize that the supplements follow Meicare';s decisions on whether an expense is legit and thus follow Meicare guidelines to the letter. If Medicare approves it, they approve it. I'm afraid I'm with Diablo on this. Not only for my wife and I but the company we run and our employees 65 and older, have never had an experience with any type of surgery where everything was free or the supplemental insurance had to pay the cost. I hope people who read this thread and are having to make medical decisions appreciate that.

---

You are missing the major point I am making.

You quote:

"I had spine surgery rather recently. The initial bills were over $1 million, then Medicare (or your insurer if you have not reached the age) knocks down all the bills down (hospital, labs, doctors, meds, etc.) and picks up most of the tab. In my last spine surgery, medicare and the supplement paid around $200K and I paid around $2K even having the supplement."

So you had a $1M surgery and you paid $2K for it. I would pretty much call that free for purposes of this discussion.

Okay so you had supplemental so your premiums were another however much - probably not THAT much.

The point here is that the difference was made up by taxpayers and people paying supplemental Medicare premiums that don't need to use it. If every person on Medicare needed your surgery we would have a problem and the reality is that with an aging population lots of people do. This is not sustainable

.

---

I respectfully disagree, the $800K discount Medicare insists on is paid by no one. The hospital inflates the bill knowing that their contracts with insurers or Medicare will lead to astronomical writer-offs of astronomical over charges (think $20 per Tylenol pill). The difference between my paying $200K and $2K is due to supplemental insurance primarily. The market for supplemental insurance is dominated by a few insurers such as AARP and the can make money on volume while charging fairly small premiums, and taking on everyone that qualifies for Medicare.

I might add your equivocation that $2K is really free might not be what your parent would think if they are writing the check; however, in your case without the supplemental insurance they are writing checks for $200,000. I'm really not tracking any of your discussion here.

---

If the surgery's $200K and you paid $2K then who paid the other $198K?

The answer isn't your supplemental insurance premiums. Medicare paid most of it and Medicare means taxpayers.

---

You are absolutely wrong and uninformed, unless there is a conspiracy to show costs paid by the supplemental insurer and not medicare in the monthly statements I get from both medicare and AARP. Do you have any evidence why medicare and the carrier, who operates solely based on premiums not taxpayer money, would choose this cost allocation? Do you even understand the purpose of supplemental insurance?

Let's start again, the providers of my surgery, hospital, doctors, labs, etc. sent bills adding up to over a $1 million. Medicare chopped the bills down and made payments to about a remainder of $200K. Supplemental insurance then made a further cut down based on its contracts with the providers, and paid the rest, other than around $2K, which I had to pay.

You clearly have no idea how the medicare system works.

DiabloWags said:

---

Former NY Fed President Bill Dudley weighs in on the Debt-Ceiling.

This link is a "gift" from yours truly.
Will be valid for 7 days.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-05-02/this-debt-limit-standoff-could-be-really-disastrous?accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTY4MzEzMjQxOSwiZXhwIjoxNjgzNzM3MjE5LCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJSVTBYMDZEV1gyUFMwMSIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiI0QTE0NjgyRTVEQjI0RDgyOEVGOTIxMzA1M0U4NzhDMiJ9.P1Uncc0DLvg2oTjxGzeMuNrzbfyuW_N3cCsHTZSS2_Q

---

Thanks for the gift link!

The article talks about the dire consequences of NOT raising the debt ceiling. That's a given -- I agree 100%. Even the brief default in 2011 cost U.S. Taxpayers $billions.

I'm not dismissing the impact of a default at all. What I am objecting to is the use of the debt ceiling, by the GOP, to cut spending that helps individuals, while avoiding cuts to corporate welfare & defense.

This whole circus is an act of economic terrorism, and the second-worst thing that we can do, as a nation, is to negotiate with the terrorists. The worst that we can do is to give in to them.

Biden just has to trust that IF he doesn't give in to the terrorists, the oligarchs will call them off, because they (the oligarchs) don't want to take the hit to their net worth.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of corporate Democrats, as well as the Party's corporate donors, who would be thrilled to see the social spending cuts. They know that the Federal budget is a zero-sum game, and every $ that goes to improving the lives of American individuals is a $ that doesn't go to them.

So I'm expecting that Biden will cave, but hoping that he'll stand firm, and use his platform to remind us all of how the GOP's brinkmanship cost us dearly back in 2011.

wifeisafurd said:

---

You are absolutely wrong and uninformed, unless there is a conspiracy to show costs paid by the supplemental insurer and not medicare in the monthly statements I get from both medicare and AARP. Do you have any evidence why medicare and the carrier, who operates solely based on premiums not taxpayer money, would choose this cost allocation? Do you even understand the purpose of supplemental insurance?

Let's start again, the providers of my surgery, hospital, doctors, labs, etc. sent bills adding up to over a $1 million. Medicare chopped the bills down and made payments to about a remainder of $200K. Supplemental insurance then made a further cut down based on its contracts with the providers, and paid the rest, other than around $2K, which I had to pay.

You clearly have no idea how the medicare system works.

---

He clearly doesnt know how it works.

Anyone that has had the slightest bit of experience with medical billing knows that he's clearly wrong and doesnt know what he's talking about.

DiabloWags said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

.

---

You guys are missing the point here.

The fairness or unfairness of income inequality are irrelevant. The mechanisms of it, and the politics of it, are irrelevant. There's no need to discuss it if you don't want to.

But what IS relevant is the collapse of Aggregate Demand. What happens when the vast majority of Worker/Customers can't afford to purchase the goods & services that they used to?

Whatever your political & economic views are, it's easy to see that the collapse of Aggregate Demand isn't good for businesses.

But that's exactly where Capital and policymakers are taking us, no?

BTW, this is exactly where we were after the October, 1929 market crash. Nobody had money to spend. The banks collapsed. The few who were wealthy bought up the assets of those who needed cash to survive. No reason to expect anything different this time.

So if you're Jamie Dimon or Jeff Bezos, you're probably looking forward to some bargain-hunting, and expanding your asset base for pennies on the dollar. But for everyone else, it's going to be a wipeout, with millions suffering and dying worldwide. And none of these guys care in the least.

"I want my fair share -- and that's all of it."
-- Charles Koch - oligarch / oil billionaire / co-founder of the Cato Institute / huuge donor to Americans for Prosperity, American Enterprise Institute, Ayn Rand Institute, Pacific Legal Foundation, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

---

Okay, you say income inequality doesn't matter. Nor do politics or media, etc. What matters is what is in bold.

Let's play your game:

Literally from the FED website:

"Aggregate Demand represents the total demand for these goods and services at any given price level during the specified period. Aggregate Demand eventually equals gross domestic product (GDP) because the two metrics are calculated in the same way. As a result, aggregate demand and GDP increase or decrease together."

So during this horrible period of capital smashing labor, show me when Aggregate Demand (which the governmet calculates as GDP) has shrunk so dramatically? Show everyone still reading this thread, the starting GDP level when labor starting losing out and where it is now as this rape of labor continues. I think you are going to find Aggregate Demand is pretty robust during the period.

---

I'm still waiting for Mr. Cbbass to answer your question above as well.

---

[Update: I addressed this to Diablo, but I'm replying to wife's original question as well.]

[Also, please read my previous post closely. I never said that income inequality wasn't important; I said that the mechanisms of it, or the fairness of the policies that lead to it aren't important. In other words, how we got here is irrelevant. The fact that we're here is what's important.]

Whoa. GDP = Aggregate Demand??? On which planet?

From Investopedia,

GDP = C + G + I + NX

where:
C = Consumption (Consumer Spending)
G = Government spending
I = Investment
NX = Net exports

In the real world, the best measure of Aggregate Demand is Consumer Spending, because GDP includes government spending and investment.

That said, even Consumer Spending doesn't tell the whole story, because the Consumer Spending bucket includes spending on food, energy, and housing, and all of those have skyrocketed in the last couple years. With the cost of necessities increasing -- mostly due to price gouging by producers with pricing power -- the Disposable Income for a majority of U.S. households has largely disappeared.

It's also important to remember that the consumer spending numbers are skewed by income & wealth inequality. They disproportionately show the resilience of Consumer Spending by the top 20% to 30% of household incomes; but they don't show the real impact that inflation & price gouging have had on the bottom 60% of households.

Two key statistics that support this:

• For several years now, the number of U.S. households who couldn't come up with $400 for an emergency is close to 50%, and that was before Covid; might be higher now;
• Consumer Debt is at an all-time high, and increasing.

The statistics that would give us a better picture of the state of U.S. Consumers would be Personal Income Expenditures (PCE) minus food, energy, and housing.

I would also subtract credit card debt, and interest on credit card debt. With the increase in interest rates, people who are running up CC balances to survive are going to get crushed. Of course, the banks will either cut off credit, OR keep extending credit, let millions of Americans go bankrupt, and get you & me -- the Taxpayers -- to cover their consumer debt losses. See how this works? This is 2008 on steroids.

SO -- If you're going to continue to make the case that "everything is just fine" with U.S. Consumers, I'll have to disagree. And since I have to work, don't expect the analysis I've laid out above to show up here anytime soon.

Just talk to people. Talk to people who are in the bottom 60% of household income, and check into how they're doing. Ask them how they feel about Fed Chair Powell's intention to "rebalance Demand" and increase unemployment.

I really don't care what some jackass from the Fed says to justify their intentional takedown of the economy. To me, he looks like a factory owner who torches his factory -- with all of his employees in it -- in the hope of getting a big check from his insurance company (which is, in this case, U.S. Taxpayers).

Diablo, you're reading, and believing, too much pro-Capital propaganda. The people whose actions you're defending Do. Not. Care. About. You. And they are NOT going to bail you out when the sh-t hits the fan.

Another quick data point on how the coming recession/depression will be worse than 2008.

John Rubino -- Home Prices are Headed Down Hard

Key Points:

• Home prices are still WAY above incomes;
• There's no "housing shortage" -- 14% of all U.S. homes are vacant!
• The number of vacant homes is 20x the number of homes currently on the market.
• Potential sellers are holding off, fearing a drop in prices, maybe hoping for a drop in interest rates.

cbbass1 said:

---

Another quick data point on how the coming recession/depression will be worse than 2008.

John Rubino -- Home Prices are Headed Down Hard

Key Points:

• Home prices are still WAY above incomes;
• There's no "housing shortage" -- 14% of all U.S. homes are vacant!
• The number of vacant homes is 20x the number of homes currently on the market.
• Potential sellers are holding off, fearing a drop in prices, maybe hoping for a drop in interest rates.

---

So what are you doing? Have you sold everything and put into gold and maybe defensive stock?

Juts wondering how strong your conviction is.

cbbass1 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

My parents are all on Medicare and while it is a wonderful program there aren't really any checks and balances to make sure they pay their fair share. One parent has been in and out of the hospital for anxiety mainly (keeps going to the ER every time there are heart palpitations despite a cardiologist giving the all clear) and each time the bill is thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands. The out of pocket is nothing.

As a taxpayer I am not happy at this abuse of the system. There has to be a way to force a reimbursement of that medical care or else make it a lot cheaper.

---

My Mom is in her 80's and diabetic and on a handful of medications.
Medicare doesnt cover everything. Hence her $230 a month Medicare supplemental thru UNH.

---

People say that and in fact my mom has supplemental insurance to cover things like dental.

It is not clear to me what Medicare doesn't over other than some medications (and dental).

---

You'd be surprised to learn what Medicare DOES NOT COVER.
And I'm not talking about Dental.

Not only does my Mom pay $230 a month for her UNH Supplemental, but she also pays $200 a month for an AARP RX Supplemental that covers her meds. - - - As 'Furd indicated above, there are massive "gaps" in coverage.

I'd bet everything that I own that your Dad and his neck surgery cost him money.
It was not "free" as you claim.

---

Completely free but none of my parents have chronic health conditions like diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis or cancer etc.

But you are missing the point of my argument which is that even if someone pays a deductible or a percentage the vast majority of the cost is still being paid by the government and the government is pretty loose about making sure the procedures are necessary, collecting money up front, etc

Private insurers require a zillion preauthorizations and referrals and so on. Not so with Medicare. You just show up and get treated, tested, whatever. You don't even need a referral to see a specialist. Go see all the specialists you want and get all the tests you want. Free. It is great for the elderly but that has to change.

---

Your do realize that the supplements follow Meicare';s decisions on whether an expense is legit and thus follow Meicare guidelines to the letter. If Medicare approves it, they approve it. I'm afraid I'm with Diablo on this. Not only for my wife and I but the company we run and our employees 65 and older, have never had an experience with any type of surgery where everything was free or the supplemental insurance had to pay the cost. I hope people who read this thread and are having to make medical decisions appreciate that.

---

You are missing the major point I am making.

You quote:

"I had spine surgery rather recently. The initial bills were over $1 million, then Medicare (or your insurer if you have not reached the age) knocks down all the bills down (hospital, labs, doctors, meds, etc.) and picks up most of the tab. In my last spine surgery, medicare and the supplement paid around $200K and I paid around $2K even having the supplement."

So you had a $1M surgery and you paid $2K for it. I would pretty much call that free for purposes of this discussion.

Okay so you had supplemental so your premiums were another however much - probably not THAT much.

The point here is that the difference was made up by taxpayers and people paying supplemental Medicare premiums that don't need to use it. If every person on Medicare needed your surgery we would have a problem and the reality is that with an aging population lots of people do. This is not sustainable

---

Medicare isn't sustainable??

I would say that having seniors choose between paying full market rate for private health insurance (and going bankrupt), or going uninsured is far less sustainable. Don't we have enough medical bankruptcies as it is? Are you wanting more homeless senior citizens??

I'll tell you what -- if you're looking for ways to save money & prevent waste, fraud, & abuse, why not check in with the Pentagon & ask them why they can't find 61% of their assets. We're spending nearly a $trillion on "defense" -- every year -- but no one is attacking us. We've built a massive, global military empire, with hundreds of bases overseas, but I don't remember any public discussion leading to this aggressive strategy, why it was necessary, or how much it was going to cost US, the taxpayers.

Anything that these ideologues are trying to cut from OUR Social Security & Medicare is pocket change to the DoD. We'll know that these guys are serious about spending cuts when they cut "defense" and completely unnecessary oil subsidies.

Please bear in mind that the U.S. is the only developed nation in the world that DOESN'T have universal health care for its citizens. Instead, we have a system of private, for-profit insurance that's so dysfunctional that Americans pay 2x more than anyone else in the world for poorer outcomes. In addition, hospitals & clinics have to employ over 2 million people nationwide just to plead with these insurers to pay the claims that they should pay.

Only in America.

---

I don't know why you point to Pentagon as sign of inefficiency as if they are an outlier of a government agency. How about unemployment and the fraud that comes with it? Government is inherently inefficient. When you provide no incentive for employees to be efficient,, you will have the same issues in every agency in the government. SEC requires strict internal control over financial reporting. Only if the government required similar controls for every agency in the government.

Our medical costs will always be more expensive as long as we continue to use medical services at a rate that far outpaces other countries and as long as we continue to have unhealthy lifestyles. The reality is, we have too much. Even the middle class has too much food relative to most other countries. Most poor in most developing countries would view the poor in our country as wealthy. And we have too much processed food that is readily available and is cheaper and therefore more frequently consumed by those who are not as wealthy.

In addition, too much of our government is indebted to the plaintiff's' bar. The cost of care is exponentially enhanced by the legal liabilities our tort system has created, and we end up providing expensive medical procedures that are unnecessary because of our litigious system our laws have incentivized. I understand the sob stories any plaintiffs' bar can highlight, but on a utilitarian basis, maybe our society and medical care for everyone would be enhanced if we made it more difficult for doctors to be sued?

And other socialist countries limit access to medical care other than for preventative care. Good luck getting a specialist in socialized healthcare countries.

And we allow too easy access to emergency rooms as a source for those without insurance, including illegal immigrants. Clinics would be a more efficient source. Have you tried going to Canada's emergency room as a non-resident? They charge you an arm and a leg. The one time I got into a bad accident mountain biking in Whistler, I was quickly treated only because I had travel medical insurance but it was expensive. They wouldn't see me unless I paid ahead of time or showed insurance. We are more generous for non-residents who need care. Have you tried to get any services from any European country as a non-resident? Doesn't happen. But we allow access to our emergency room, the most expensive form of medical care, to those who cannot pay.

I am all for single-payer system, but let's not kid ourselves that, for most of us here, it will not result in lower quality of care and less access unless we are willing to pay out of pocket and go to a doctor who does not take medicare. Maybe we can provide a government option as a cheaper alternative but force the government to compete and provide incentive to be efficient.

cbbass1 said:

---

Another quick data point on how the coming recession/depression will be worse than 2008.

John Rubino -- Home Prices are Headed Down Hard

Key Points:

• Home prices are still WAY above incomes;
• There's no "housing shortage" -- 14% of all U.S. homes are vacant!
• The number of vacant homes is 20x the number of homes currently on the market.
• Potential sellers are holding off, fearing a drop in prices, maybe hoping for a drop in interest rates.

---

Supply and demand doesn't care if an owner of housing keeps it vacant. Supply and demand only cares that there is a low supply of housing available for purchase.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

My parents are all on Medicare and while it is a wonderful program there aren't really any checks and balances to make sure they pay their fair share. One parent has been in and out of the hospital for anxiety mainly (keeps going to the ER every time there are heart palpitations despite a cardiologist giving the all clear) and each time the bill is thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands. The out of pocket is nothing.

As a taxpayer I am not happy at this abuse of the system. There has to be a way to force a reimbursement of that medical care or else make it a lot cheaper.

---

My Mom is in her 80's and diabetic and on a handful of medications.
Medicare doesnt cover everything. Hence her $230 a month Medicare supplemental thru UNH.

---

People say that and in fact my mom has supplemental insurance to cover things like dental.

It is not clear to me what Medicare doesn't over other than some medications (and dental).

---

You'd be surprised to learn what Medicare DOES NOT COVER.
And I'm not talking about Dental.

Not only does my Mom pay $230 a month for her UNH Supplemental, but she also pays $200 a month for an AARP RX Supplemental that covers her meds. - - - As 'Furd indicated above, there are massive "gaps" in coverage.

I'd bet everything that I own that your Dad and his neck surgery cost him money.
It was not "free" as you claim.

---

Completely free but none of my parents have chronic health conditions like diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis or cancer etc.

But you are missing the point of my argument which is that even if someone pays a deductible or a percentage the vast majority of the cost is still being paid by the government and the government is pretty loose about making sure the procedures are necessary, collecting money up front, etc

Private insurers require a zillion preauthorizations and referrals and so on. Not so with Medicare. You just show up and get treated, tested, whatever. You don't even need a referral to see a specialist. Go see all the specialists you want and get all the tests you want. Free. It is great for the elderly but that has to change.

---

Your do realize that the supplements follow Meicare';s decisions on whether an expense is legit and thus follow Meicare guidelines to the letter. If Medicare approves it, they approve it. I'm afraid I'm with Diablo on this. Not only for my wife and I but the company we run and our employees 65 and older, have never had an experience with any type of surgery where everything was free or the supplemental insurance had to pay the cost. I hope people who read this thread and are having to make medical decisions appreciate that.

---

You are missing the major point I am making.

You quote:

"I had spine surgery rather recently. The initial bills were over $1 million, then Medicare (or your insurer if you have not reached the age) knocks down all the bills down (hospital, labs, doctors, meds, etc.) and picks up most of the tab. In my last spine surgery, medicare and the supplement paid around $200K and I paid around $2K even having the supplement."

So you had a $1M surgery and you paid $2K for it. I would pretty much call that free for purposes of this discussion.

Okay so you had supplemental so your premiums were another however much - probably not THAT much.

The point here is that the difference was made up by taxpayers and people paying supplemental Medicare premiums that don't need to use it. If every person on Medicare needed your surgery we would have a problem and the reality is that with an aging population lots of people do. This is not sustainable

.

---

I respectfully disagree, the $800K discount Medicare insists on is paid by no one. The hospital inflates the bill knowing that their contracts with insurers or Medicare will lead to astronomical writer-offs of astronomical over charges (think $20 per Tylenol pill). The difference between my paying $200K and $2K is due to supplemental insurance primarily. The market for supplemental insurance is dominated by a few insurers such as AARP and the can make money on volume while charging fairly small premiums, and taking on everyone that qualifies for Medicare.

I might add your equivocation that $2K is really free might not be what your parent would think if they are writing the check; however, in your case without the supplemental insurance they are writing checks for $200,000. I'm really not tracking any of your discussion here.

---

If the surgery's $200K and you paid $2K then who paid the other $198K?

The answer isn't your supplemental insurance premiums. Medicare paid most of it and Medicare means taxpayers.

---

You are absolutely wrong and uninformed, unless there is a conspiracy to show costs paid by the supplemental insurer and not medicare in the monthly statements I get from both medicare and AARP. Do you have any evidence why medicare and the carrier, who operates solely based on premiums not taxpayer money, would choose this cost allocation? Do you even understand the purpose of supplemental insurance?

Let's start again, the providers of my surgery, hospital, doctors, labs, etc. sent bills adding up to over a $1 million. Medicare chopped the bills down and made payments to about a remainder of $200K. Supplemental insurance then made a further cut down based on its contracts with the providers, and paid the rest, other than around $2K, which I had to pay.

You clearly have no idea how the medicare system works.

---

Let's simplify:

You say Medicare made most of the payments for your surgery.

Where do you think that money came from?

If I am totally wrong and it didn't come from taxpayers please tell me where it came from.

By the way, I uploaded a recent hospital bill I found for a relative who has Original Medicare. It was an overnight stay and involved a lot of diagnostics.

It was ostensibly a $26K hospital bill.

The "maximum amount billed" was $22.51 and she hasn't even been billed for that.

So, yes, it is totally possible to have hospital stays and pay nothing out of pocket with Original Medicare. In fact, it happens all the time in my extensive experience with hospitalizations for relatives over the last several years.

I wish my own insurance was as good.

Copy of the statement:

https://ibb.co/93NJCRy

cbbass1 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

My parents are all on Medicare and while it is a wonderful program there aren't really any checks and balances to make sure they pay their fair share. One parent has been in and out of the hospital for anxiety mainly (keeps going to the ER every time there are heart palpitations despite a cardiologist giving the all clear) and each time the bill is thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands. The out of pocket is nothing.

As a taxpayer I am not happy at this abuse of the system. There has to be a way to force a reimbursement of that medical care or else make it a lot cheaper.

---

My Mom is in her 80's and diabetic and on a handful of medications.
Medicare doesnt cover everything. Hence her $230 a month Medicare supplemental thru UNH.

---

People say that and in fact my mom has supplemental insurance to cover things like dental.

It is not clear to me what Medicare doesn't over other than some medications (and dental).

---

You'd be surprised to learn what Medicare DOES NOT COVER.
And I'm not talking about Dental.

Not only does my Mom pay $230 a month for her UNH Supplemental, but she also pays $200 a month for an AARP RX Supplemental that covers her meds. - - - As 'Furd indicated above, there are massive "gaps" in coverage.

I'd bet everything that I own that your Dad and his neck surgery cost him money.
It was not "free" as you claim.

---

Completely free but none of my parents have chronic health conditions like diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis or cancer etc.

But you are missing the point of my argument which is that even if someone pays a deductible or a percentage the vast majority of the cost is still being paid by the government and the government is pretty loose about making sure the procedures are necessary, collecting money up front, etc

Private insurers require a zillion preauthorizations and referrals and so on. Not so with Medicare. You just show up and get treated, tested, whatever. You don't even need a referral to see a specialist. Go see all the specialists you want and get all the tests you want. Free. It is great for the elderly but that has to change.

---

Your do realize that the supplements follow Meicare';s decisions on whether an expense is legit and thus follow Meicare guidelines to the letter. If Medicare approves it, they approve it. I'm afraid I'm with Diablo on this. Not only for my wife and I but the company we run and our employees 65 and older, have never had an experience with any type of surgery where everything was free or the supplemental insurance had to pay the cost. I hope people who read this thread and are having to make medical decisions appreciate that.

---

You are missing the major point I am making.

You quote:

"I had spine surgery rather recently. The initial bills were over $1 million, then Medicare (or your insurer if you have not reached the age) knocks down all the bills down (hospital, labs, doctors, meds, etc.) and picks up most of the tab. In my last spine surgery, medicare and the supplement paid around $200K and I paid around $2K even having the supplement."

So you had a $1M surgery and you paid $2K for it. I would pretty much call that free for purposes of this discussion.

Okay so you had supplemental so your premiums were another however much - probably not THAT much.

The point here is that the difference was made up by taxpayers and people paying supplemental Medicare premiums that don't need to use it. If every person on Medicare needed your surgery we would have a problem and the reality is that with an aging population lots of people do. This is not sustainable

---

Medicare isn't sustainable??

I would say that having seniors choose between paying full market rate for private health insurance (and going bankrupt), or going uninsured is far less sustainable. Don't we have enough medical bankruptcies as it is? Are you wanting more homeless senior citizens??

I'll tell you what -- if you're looking for ways to save money & prevent waste, fraud, & abuse, why not check in with the Pentagon & ask them why they can't find 61% of their assets. We're spending nearly a $trillion on "defense" -- every year -- but no one is attacking us. We've built a massive, global military empire, with hundreds of bases overseas, but I don't remember any public discussion leading to this aggressive strategy, why it was necessary, or how much it was going to cost US, the taxpayers.

Anything that these ideologues are trying to cut from OUR Social Security & Medicare is pocket change to the DoD. We'll know that these guys are serious about spending cuts when they cut "defense" and completely unnecessary oil subsidies.

Please bear in mind that the U.S. is the only developed nation in the world that DOESN'T have universal health care for its citizens. Instead, we have a system of private, for-profit insurance that's so dysfunctional that Americans pay 2x more than anyone else in the world for poorer outcomes. In addition, hospitals & clinics have to employ over 2 million people nationwide just to plead with these insurers to pay the claims that they should pay.

Only in America.

---

No arguments from me about cuts to defense spending.

That said, I do not think the demographics support entitlement programs at their current levels.

dimitrig said:

---

cbbass1 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

My parents are all on Medicare and while it is a wonderful program there aren't really any checks and balances to make sure they pay their fair share. One parent has been in and out of the hospital for anxiety mainly (keeps going to the ER every time there are heart palpitations despite a cardiologist giving the all clear) and each time the bill is thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands. The out of pocket is nothing.

As a taxpayer I am not happy at this abuse of the system. There has to be a way to force a reimbursement of that medical care or else make it a lot cheaper.

---

My Mom is in her 80's and diabetic and on a handful of medications.
Medicare doesnt cover everything. Hence her $230 a month Medicare supplemental thru UNH.

---

People say that and in fact my mom has supplemental insurance to cover things like dental.

It is not clear to me what Medicare doesn't over other than some medications (and dental).

---

You'd be surprised to learn what Medicare DOES NOT COVER.
And I'm not talking about Dental.

Not only does my Mom pay $230 a month for her UNH Supplemental, but she also pays $200 a month for an AARP RX Supplemental that covers her meds. - - - As 'Furd indicated above, there are massive "gaps" in coverage.

I'd bet everything that I own that your Dad and his neck surgery cost him money.
It was not "free" as you claim.

---

Completely free but none of my parents have chronic health conditions like diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis or cancer etc.

But you are missing the point of my argument which is that even if someone pays a deductible or a percentage the vast majority of the cost is still being paid by the government and the government is pretty loose about making sure the procedures are necessary, collecting money up front, etc

Private insurers require a zillion preauthorizations and referrals and so on. Not so with Medicare. You just show up and get treated, tested, whatever. You don't even need a referral to see a specialist. Go see all the specialists you want and get all the tests you want. Free. It is great for the elderly but that has to change.

---

Your do realize that the supplements follow Meicare';s decisions on whether an expense is legit and thus follow Meicare guidelines to the letter. If Medicare approves it, they approve it. I'm afraid I'm with Diablo on this. Not only for my wife and I but the company we run and our employees 65 and older, have never had an experience with any type of surgery where everything was free or the supplemental insurance had to pay the cost. I hope people who read this thread and are having to make medical decisions appreciate that.

---

You are missing the major point I am making.

You quote:

"I had spine surgery rather recently. The initial bills were over $1 million, then Medicare (or your insurer if you have not reached the age) knocks down all the bills down (hospital, labs, doctors, meds, etc.) and picks up most of the tab. In my last spine surgery, medicare and the supplement paid around $200K and I paid around $2K even having the supplement."

So you had a $1M surgery and you paid $2K for it. I would pretty much call that free for purposes of this discussion.

Okay so you had supplemental so your premiums were another however much - probably not THAT much.

The point here is that the difference was made up by taxpayers and people paying supplemental Medicare premiums that don't need to use it. If every person on Medicare needed your surgery we would have a problem and the reality is that with an aging population lots of people do. This is not sustainable

---

Medicare isn't sustainable??

I would say that having seniors choose between paying full market rate for private health insurance (and going bankrupt), or going uninsured is far less sustainable. Don't we have enough medical bankruptcies as it is? Are you wanting more homeless senior citizens??

I'll tell you what -- if you're looking for ways to save money & prevent waste, fraud, & abuse, why not check in with the Pentagon & ask them why they can't find 61% of their assets. We're spending nearly a $trillion on "defense" -- every year -- but no one is attacking us. We've built a massive, global military empire, with hundreds of bases overseas, but I don't remember any public discussion leading to this aggressive strategy, why it was necessary, or how much it was going to cost US, the taxpayers.

Anything that these ideologues are trying to cut from OUR Social Security & Medicare is pocket change to the DoD. We'll know that these guys are serious about spending cuts when they cut "defense" and completely unnecessary oil subsidies.

Please bear in mind that the U.S. is the only developed nation in the world that DOESN'T have universal health care for its citizens. Instead, we have a system of private, for-profit insurance that's so dysfunctional that Americans pay 2x more than anyone else in the world for poorer outcomes. In addition, hospitals & clinics have to employ over 2 million people nationwide just to plead with these insurers to pay the claims that they should pay.

Only in America.

---

No arguments from me about cuts to defense spending.

That said, I do not think the demographics support entitlement programs at their current levels.

---

I see your point about the demographics.

However, I don't think there would be an issue with young people if their wages & salaries were a lot higher relative to the cost of living, or if employers paid a larger share.

dimitrig said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

My parents are all on Medicare and while it is a wonderful program there aren't really any checks and balances to make sure they pay their fair share. One parent has been in and out of the hospital for anxiety mainly (keeps going to the ER every time there are heart palpitations despite a cardiologist giving the all clear) and each time the bill is thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands. The out of pocket is nothing.

As a taxpayer I am not happy at this abuse of the system. There has to be a way to force a reimbursement of that medical care or else make it a lot cheaper.

---

My Mom is in her 80's and diabetic and on a handful of medications.
Medicare doesnt cover everything. Hence her $230 a month Medicare supplemental thru UNH.

---

People say that and in fact my mom has supplemental insurance to cover things like dental.

It is not clear to me what Medicare doesn't over other than some medications (and dental).

---

You'd be surprised to learn what Medicare DOES NOT COVER.
And I'm not talking about Dental.

Not only does my Mom pay $230 a month for her UNH Supplemental, but she also pays $200 a month for an AARP RX Supplemental that covers her meds. - - - As 'Furd indicated above, there are massive "gaps" in coverage.

I'd bet everything that I own that your Dad and his neck surgery cost him money.
It was not "free" as you claim.

---

Completely free but none of my parents have chronic health conditions like diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis or cancer etc.

But you are missing the point of my argument which is that even if someone pays a deductible or a percentage the vast majority of the cost is still being paid by the government and the government is pretty loose about making sure the procedures are necessary, collecting money up front, etc

Private insurers require a zillion preauthorizations and referrals and so on. Not so with Medicare. You just show up and get treated, tested, whatever. You don't even need a referral to see a specialist. Go see all the specialists you want and get all the tests you want. Free. It is great for the elderly but that has to change.

---

Your do realize that the supplements follow Meicare';s decisions on whether an expense is legit and thus follow Meicare guidelines to the letter. If Medicare approves it, they approve it. I'm afraid I'm with Diablo on this. Not only for my wife and I but the company we run and our employees 65 and older, have never had an experience with any type of surgery where everything was free or the supplemental insurance had to pay the cost. I hope people who read this thread and are having to make medical decisions appreciate that.

---

You are missing the major point I am making.

You quote:

"I had spine surgery rather recently. The initial bills were over $1 million, then Medicare (or your insurer if you have not reached the age) knocks down all the bills down (hospital, labs, doctors, meds, etc.) and picks up most of the tab. In my last spine surgery, medicare and the supplement paid around $200K and I paid around $2K even having the supplement."

So you had a $1M surgery and you paid $2K for it. I would pretty much call that free for purposes of this discussion.

Okay so you had supplemental so your premiums were another however much - probably not THAT much.

The point here is that the difference was made up by taxpayers and people paying supplemental Medicare premiums that don't need to use it. If every person on Medicare needed your surgery we would have a problem and the reality is that with an aging population lots of people do. This is not sustainable

.

---

I respectfully disagree, the $800K discount Medicare insists on is paid by no one. The hospital inflates the bill knowing that their contracts with insurers or Medicare will lead to astronomical writer-offs of astronomical over charges (think $20 per Tylenol pill). The difference between my paying $200K and $2K is due to supplemental insurance primarily. The market for supplemental insurance is dominated by a few insurers such as AARP and the can make money on volume while charging fairly small premiums, and taking on everyone that qualifies for Medicare.

I might add your equivocation that $2K is really free might not be what your parent would think if they are writing the check; however, in your case without the supplemental insurance they are writing checks for $200,000. I'm really not tracking any of your discussion here.

---

If the surgery's $200K and you paid $2K then who paid the other $198K?

The answer isn't your supplemental insurance premiums. Medicare paid most of it and Medicare means taxpayers.

---

You are absolutely wrong and uninformed, unless there is a conspiracy to show costs paid by the supplemental insurer and not medicare in the monthly statements I get from both medicare and AARP. Do you have any evidence why medicare and the carrier, who operates solely based on premiums not taxpayer money, would choose this cost allocation? Do you even understand the purpose of supplemental insurance?

Let's start again, the providers of my surgery, hospital, doctors, labs, etc. sent bills adding up to over a $1 million. Medicare chopped the bills down and made payments to about a remainder of $200K. Supplemental insurance then made a further cut down based on its contracts with the providers, and paid the rest, other than around $2K, which I had to pay.

You clearly have no idea how the medicare system works.

---

Let's simplify:

You say Medicare made most of the payments for your surgery.

Where do you think that money came from?

If I am totally wrong and it didn't come from taxpayers please tell me where it came from.

---

Check your pay stub, or W-2. It's a payroll deduction that's separate from State & Federal taxes.

Before ACA private insurers were raking in 22% to 28% overhead (that is, taking up to $1.28 in premiums for every $1 in claims). ACA limited insurers to 20% overhead. And boy, did they ***** & moan.

Medicare's overhead rate is 3%. Now that's efficient. How do they achieve such a high level of efficiency?

• Medicare's mission is to pay the medical bills of America's seniors.
• The mission of private insurers to to generate maximum profits. They accomplish this, primarily, by denying claims.
• No excessive executive compensation;
• No corporate jets;
• No negotiations with hospitals & car providers regarding denial of claims; claims are approved.

Private-sector health insurance is very inefficient, especially relative to Public-sector Medicare.

Looks like some of the Debt-Ceiling pressure is coming off of short term T-Bills given positive news out of the negotiations between the Biden Administration and Kevin McCarthy.

Last week, the 4 week T Bill spiked as high as 5.71% given fears over the Govt. not being able to pay the interest on them when the government runs out of money in June. This was nearly 1 full percentage point higher than the 8 week Bill (4.79%)

Yesterday's yield on the 4 week T Bill was 5.49% vs the 8 week Bill at 5.19%
A spread of only 0.30

Resource Center | U.S. Department of the Treasury

A record $97 BILLION in estimated Treasury payments are due right around June 1 - 2.
These payments would swallow HALF of the Treasury's remaining resources.