Medicare: A Glimpse of Reality Revised

The nation's Medicare system is now engulfed in controversy over its future. What might we believe?

I'll spell out the real problem. In connection with the delivery of medical services in America, one fact must be recognized. While medical technology becomes increasingly involved and costly, a substantial and growing portion of the population, with little or no financial resources, is guaranteed limitless access to the services. Any solution to the problem is complex, involving the political quandary of requiring massive transfers of wealth among various groups of the society. As difficult as this might seem, there are three factors that make it all the more unresolvable. First, the number of persons eligible for Medicare benefits now stands at approximately fifty million and continues to grow steadily. Second, an increasing number of business, many for pure survival, are ridding themselves of employees and transferring their assets outside our borders, beyond the reach of regulators and tax collectors. Third, and perhaps most crucial, is that the effective tax rate on a middle class working American is nearing 50 percent. Not only is there little slack, but the rate is reaching historical revolt conditions.

Here are my predictions for the future. As with the social security system itself, expect the costs to increase as benefits shrink. The practical limit beyond which fees and charges cannot be raised is that of "collectibility," usually reflecting the point when political considerations overrule the attempt to extract further revenue. As to reduced benefits, the die became cast with provisions inserted in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). For the first time, certain Medicare benefits are tied to the recipient's income and assets. With that precedent set, Medicare will progressively merge with the nation's Medicaid program that services the indigent among us, and eventually become indistinguishable from it.

Finally, let me put the matter into perspective. In searching for the guilty parties, don't try to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys. The deception and chicanery employed in enacting MMA is not unique to any particular political group. Under similar circumstances, the Democrats . . . or Libertarians . . . or Greens . . . or whomever . . . would engage in the same sort of activities. Never forget that, in an attempt to influence a sizeable voting bloc, there are no boundaries. The political process is amoral.

8/28/2007 7:00:00 AM
Al Jacobs
Written by Al Jacobs
AL JACOBS has been a professional investor for more than four decades. His business experience ranges from real estate, mortgage, and securities investment to appraisal, civil engineering, and the operation of a private trust company. In ad
View Full Profile

Comments
Mr. Jacobs, Is there a good formula for calculating the reasonable % of monthly household income that should go towards a mortgage payment (and related costs like property tax)? For example, if a married couple has a monthly household income of say $10000 after tax withholdings and and 401k contributions (to make it a round number), what's the most of that take home pay that should go toward a mortgage payment? I'm asking because we're looking at buying a home we are trying assess what should be the most we should responsibly be spending each month. Thanks, Eric
Posted by ewilson
Dear Jenny, Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting, though the assets you accumulate through savings and investing are for more than just medical expenses. Affluence becomes important as you age. It's OK to be broke when you're young and vigorous, but it's neither easy nor enjoyable to be old and poor. Best of luck to you. Al Jacobs
Posted by Al Jacobs
That's an interesting answer Al. So are you suggesting that people need to start saving more for medical expenses since the system doesn't appear to be improving in our life times?
Posted by
Dear Jenny, You've asked that I recommend what to do. I've reproduced below a paragraph from my book that explains exactly what I've advocated for several years. It may not thoroughly satisfy you, but it's the approach I advocate. "A prime purpose of this book is to suggest ways to address problems. Accept my apologies in this case. There may be no long-term solution to recommend. If you are reasonably young and healthy, you will want a low cost program, and an HMO provides satisfactory medical care as long as no sickness occurs. It is when you actually contract an ailment that the troubles begin. Any person whose health is less than ideal will be better off with a good private physician and a comprehensive health insurance policy. Unless and until private medicine ceases to exist, pursue this goal, recognizing that as time passes your choices narrow while costs increase. With that in store, you must be prepared to shoulder the expense when the time comes. Possessing the financial ability to provide first-class medical care for yourself and your family, with most of the nation relegated to third-rate status, is part of what personal wealth is all about. This will surely be a situation where success is its own reward." Jenny, I hope this helps answer your question. Regards. Al Jacobs
Posted by Al Jacobs
Thanks Mr. Jacobs. That was kind of hard to follow. So what would you recommend we do?
Posted by

Related Keywords

Wellness.com does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment nor do we verify or endorse any specific business or professional listed on the site. Wellness.com does not verify the accuracy or efficacy of user generated content, reviews, ratings or any published content on the site. Use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use.
©2024 Wellness®.com is a registered trademark of Wellness.com, Inc. Powered by Earnware