Why are free market seniors on gov-run Medicare?

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
1

This is a critically important policy issue because everyone has health.

I am witnessing some kind of cognitive dissonance and I crave understanding.

All the time I see the 65+ crowd tell me they yearn for smaller government, you know, cut the waste, fraud and abuse, get government out of the way and let the wonderful efficiency of the free market do its job and match supply to demand at the appropriate price - it’s a no brainer some people say.

But then they say “but we can’t cut Medicare.”

Yet it’s the most massive gov program.

What!?!

If there is ever a place to cut gov, it’s there. Just DOGE it! (Kind of like just do it, but with an extra GE - another free market wonder - weird, it’s like everything is connected!)

The seniors say “but we paid into it.”

That’s fair. Refund them all of their lifetime taxes in 2025 dollars and they can use that money to buy healthcare in the free market - insurance, or pay the nurse/physician direct, etc - whatever works, it’s the free market, anything is possible and one less card to carry, just shred that Medicare card.

My math could be all wrong, but hear me out. Assume 1.45% Medicare tax on wages, annual wage of $100k, and 45 years in the workforce. That comes to a refund of $65,250 per senior and the same amount for their employers - it’s win-win for seniors and businesses!

The $65k would need to be prorated for seniors who have already consumed years of Medicare - let DOGE run the actuarial numbers - or they can hire someone if they can’t find the IRS tables.

That would get rid of this annoying conflict of:
“I want small government.” on one hand
and
“I want gov-run Medicare (because I paid into it).” on the other hand.

Just cut both hands off! (not literally) and take the $65k.

Back of the envelope, assume prorated $40k for each of the 66 million seniors on Medicare, but then double that to also refund businesses. That comes to $5.28 trillion, I think. Annual Medicare spending is about $850 billion, so we’d recover the refund in 6-7 years. Makes sense to me, cognitive dissonance resolved.

This could make the short list.

9 Likes
2

These budget arguments are never really about “spending”, but about who the “spending” benefits. $1T for health care for the poor and infirm? “Socialism!!!” they scream. Another $1T in tax cuts for “JCs”? “Pro-growth” they proclaim.

Steve

11 Likes
3

No cognitive dissonance at all. Just arithmetic.

Traditional Gov’t-run Medicare spends 1.3% of it’s program budget for admin expenses, and 98.7% on actual medical services for beneficiaries.

Add the corruption of a for-profit health insurance company to the mix with Medicare Advantage (MA), and 15% of the total is lost to broker’s sales commissions, a for profit bureaucracy designed to frustrate and delay your access to health care, and an unGodly level of excessive Executive Compensation.

Ronald Reagan took Lyndon Johnson’s observations to heart and weaponized it for profit. The country has been suffering for that since.

Today rural hospitals are closing, largely because Medicare Advantage pays them less than traditional Medicare, yet rural folks believe a for-profit insurer is “more efficient”. “More efficient” for who? {{ LOL }}

Give them what the voted for – good and hard.

intercst

12 Likes
4

I don’t know, these two statements seem in direct conflict to me:

Let’s just refund everyone their $65k, probably throw in some interest (no pun intended), so might have to double it or something, then prorate. Each Medicare beneficiary costs about $15k per year, so has to be money to be saved.

Free market team, a little help here?

1 Like
5

“I am witnessing some kind of cognitive dissonance and I crave understanding.”

I’ve noticed that cognitive dissonance for years. Still remember a local Tea Party Rally, seniors ranting about cutting the Fed budget while carrying signs saying “Government keep your hands off my healthcare”. They were almost certainly on Medicare or Medicaid, lol.

Another display of cognitive dissonance is people hating Obamacare, but liking the ACA healthcare plan they have, as compared to trying to get health insurance for themselves and their family on their own. So it is not just Seniors who are befuddled,lol.

Not sure how old you are, MostlyLong, but do keep in mind that 1 day you will be a Senior ( hopefully ). You might not want to find out how the health insurance companies would want to price their medical care policies when you’re a standalone senior-citizen entity. Or maybe you’re channeling your inner Ayn Rand and do want to take on that battle. If so, do remember that Ayn Rand ended up on social security and medicare,lol, and she did so willingly. So she was full of malarkey.

9 Likes
6

One of the unintended consequences of Medicare was loss of retiree health care, which used to be the norm. It’s now very rare, and for the few who get it, almost always lost when you turn 65. That was the main benefit that was lost, not just the fees paid into Medicare.

We are struggling right now with the transition to Medicare for our family. DH turned 65 last year, forcing him onto Medicare and me on to the ACA. Neither of these programs is conducive to the lifestyle we want, which does not included a home base, but traveling around the world via furnished rentals. My parents, who had retiree healthcare that continued past 65, were full time RVers. ACA is state based, city really, so I have to come back to this location for routine health care. Looked at non-ACA healthcare and it is absolutely filled with pitfalls, one being very low max coverage. Medicare mandates that DH, a type 1 diabetic, get checked out by his endocrinologist quarterly, whether it’s needed or not. It’s not. Absolutely handcuffed.

For cuts in program, we would be thrilled if they let the doctors make the medical decisions, rather than force you in to the doctor 4 times a year. They won’t even let you do telehealth for these visits. Waste of money, waste of time, but that retiree healthcare is never coming back. The gov’t is stuck with the unintended results of their interference.

IP

5 Likes
7

I know, seriously, she’s off the free market dream team as far as I’m concerned, that’s practically living off the gov. But, maybe “she paid into it.”

And this?

I believe it’s called “price discovery.”

Happy winter, I hope you have/get some snow to get those skis moving. Go Lions.

1 Like
8

I am in. Refund me all my Social Security and Medicare deductions with interest. The interest rate needs to be what I would have gotten in S&P 500 index.

9

It is not seen as socialism if you pay in.

Socialism only exists if you pay in.

10

One of the unintended consequences of Medicare was loss of retiree health care, which used to be the norm. It’s now very rare,

You talking about employers?

No. It was only “the norm” for a handful of big paycheck types just like it still is. It was never “the norm” for work-a-day regular Americans. Also, that did not have the continuity of Government. Businessman goes broke, you lose everything.

Most important, Medicare did NOT cause that to go away. The business who didn’t want to pay for it decided to stop it. Private choice. Nobody forced anybody to do anything.

13 Likes
11

lol, I agree 100%, hate that hypocrisy.

“Happy winter, I hope you have/get some snow to get those skis moving. Go Lions”

The previous 3 winters have been weak and pathetic, but this one has been normal, except for the 40-50 degree temps that wiped out the snow base between Xmas and NYE’s. But the Lake Effect machine has been turned on since, and I am luvin it ! Main thing I have to be careful of is not skiing too much and grinding myself into dust,lol. But heading out soon for the 9th day out of 10.

Luvin those Lions, too !!! Been a lifetime “fan”, so this recent couple of seasons feels like a dream. I’m no longer a rabid fan of any sports team, but the Lions and Tigers are quite interesting to me !

4 Likes
12

Alot of the malarkey going around.

13

It was if you belonged to a Union.

14

Only 10% of USian workers today, are members of a union. The previous Gov of Michigan, a “JC”, signed a state “right to work” law, after saying during the campaign that he would not. The current Gov had that law repealed. The former Gov got back into politics, with the stated intent of pushing for the law to be re-enacted, as soon as the current Gov is out of office. The current Gov is term limited, so will be out in two years. There is a three way race shaping up for 26, so the “JC” class will almost certainly win. Of course, there could be a national “right to work” law by then, because the decent pay and benefits unions fight for “burden” the “JCs”.

Steve

5 Likes
15

I think his post is sarcastic?

1 Like
16

It could be prophetic?

17

My parents were teachers…hardly big paycheck. With two master degrees in her field, Mom’s salary in her final year was about $16,000. Dad, who was the level of a Principal, retired at $50K.

Because they could, now that it was mandatory for people to go on Medicare at 65. Given that opportunity, of course they would. As I said, it was an UNINTENDED consequence of Medicare, not a goal of the gov’t.

IP

18

Maybe a good idea, right? Have the Fed gov somehow replicate the past returns of the 500 largest companies over 45 years that have already happened.

Kind of like the movie back to the future except instead of going back in time and sorting out family issues, return with Deloreans filled with cash!

I’m thinking, why do we care so much about space travel to some lifeless rocks? All of the action (plus water and oxygen) is right here on earth. The real money could be in time travel! Want to really advance physics and engineering? Time travel!

3 Likes
19

LOL.

I would do time travel back to my ancestors favorite myth weaving time, the 1840 -1880 on the West Coast of the USA.

d fb

2 Likes
20

Public employees with pensions. Not the norm at all in the private sector.

I’m getting two pensions today for Fortune 500 engineering jobs I had 30 or 40 years ago. (Only made the 5-year cutoff for pension vesting by a month or two as I job-hopped between 5 different Fortune 500 companies in the 1980’s on my way to early retirement.) The only people getting defined benefit pensions at these companies today is the top dozen or so executives.

Thank Ronald Reagan and Private Equity.

intercst

1 Like