How can we admit Medicare will go broke if we don't change it but not want to change it? How is this logical? How is this an accepted view?
Much of today's debate in washington surrounds the future of Medicare. Should we cut it, should we go to a vouchure system etc? But the counter viewpoint is not a counter viewpoint at all. Its nothing, the proposal to leave it alone while acknowledging its ultimate failure is idiotic at best. With all of the smart logical people that stop by and read these questions. Isn't there an answer here? I'd love to hear views of those supporting leaving the system as is and understand how they feel its a view worth listening to. I'd love to hear ideas about how to cut costs while maintaining benefits. are we simply dolts to sit here and listen to our leaders tell us Medicare can be affective if we add 40 million people into a healthcare sytem while while cutting 500 billion in reimbursement to providers? Hospitals are cutting staff all over the country, closing wings, Skilled Nursing facilities are dying becuase of their reimbursement cuts, ambulance serives, physical theropy, etc. all have taken huge reimbursement cuts while being expected to process patients at below their actual costs? who but an elected official would propose a system will improve when adding 40 million patients into an already over crowded and burdened system while cutting reimbursements?