dajo9;842762138 said:
OK, we disagree on what to do about Medicare.
But more importantly, did the President-Elect lay out an argument for changing Medicare in an open honest discussion and did the people vote for that change?
No on both counts. The President-Elect said he would keep Medicare and the people didn't vote for him, they voted for Hillary.
I agree there was't any honest discussion, by either candidate. I didn't pay much attention to Trump, because I don't think even he knows (or cares) where he stands. As for Clinton, from what I read her position was that she would add a few more price controls to Medicare, expand it to those in their 50's and protect it from being destroyed by the Republicans. Given my believe that changes to Medicare are inevitable, i didn't see that as very honest.
Not trying to start any argument here, but I don't gather what your position on Medicare is. That's probably because I generally stay out of political threads and only read the posts within them related to health care, a particular interest of mine. So I haven't read all the posts here. If your position is that we don't need to make much, if any, adjustment to Medicare I think you owe it to yourself to read the Trustees' report I mentioned. Here's the concluding paragraph from the latest one:
"The projections in this year’s report continue to demonstrate the need for timely and effective action to address Medicare’s remaining financial challenges—including the projected depletion of the HI trust fund, this fund’s long-range financial imbalance, and the rapid growth in Medicare expenditures.
Furthermore, if the growth in Medicare costs is comparable to growth under the illustrative alternative projections, then these further policy reforms will have to address much larger financial challenges than those assumed under current law. The Board of Trustees believes that solutions can and must be found to ensure the financial integrity of HI in the short and long term and to reduce the rate of growth in Medicare costs through viable means. Consideration of such reforms should not be delayed. The sooner the solutions are enacted, the more flexible and gradual they can be. Moreover, the early introduction of reforms increases the time available for affected individuals and organizations—including health care providers, beneficiaries, and taxpayers—to adjust their expectations and behavior. The Board recommends that Congress and the executive branch work closely together with a sense of urgency to address these challenges."
This conclusion has been there for years and consistently made across both Democratic and Republican administrations. (The report is prepared under the authority of the relevant cabinet members.) The statement in bold is particularly important. As I said before, the projections in these reports have consistently overestimated the program's performance. I just looked up what the 2006 report predicted for 2015. It had Medicare generating a $21 billion surplus. The actual result was a $3.5 billion deficit. Again, that's due in part to including in the baseline projections the cost-reducing effects of provisions in the current law that are always waived.
As long as we have politicians refusing to address the issues raised in the report and characterizing any proposal to adjust Medicare as an effort to 'destroy' it, we won't have an honest discussion.
