On 6/14/2011 1:01 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:43:46 -0500, Jeff M
wrote:

snip
Well, as the health economists Austin Frakt and Aaron Carroll
document, right now Americans in their early 60s without health
insurance routinely delay needed care, only to become very expensive
Medicare recipients once they reach 65. This pattern would be even
stronger and more destructive if Medicare eligibility were delayed. As a
result, Mr. Frakt and Mr. Carroll suggest, Medicare spending might
actually go up, not down, under Mr. Lieberman’s proposal.
snip

It could even get worse. Under the current law, if you go
to an emergency room you *MUST* be treated, regardless of
your ability to pay. This is already driving many hospitals
out of business, and many others are shutting their
emergency room. 65& 66 year olds won't stop getting sick
or having accidents/falls just because they have no medical
coverage, and the local taxpayers and other hospital users
will have to make up the shortfall.

This is also a good way to convert a mild health care
situation, which is not covered, into a medical crisis
requiring heroic medical intervention in the ER which is
covered, albeit not through Medicare, and at much greater
expense to society, unless euthanasia is mandated.

Far from reducing Medicare coverage, this is an argument for
progressively *LOWERING* the age for Medicare coverage. For
example, if the minimum age for Medicare coverage was
reduced to 60, does anyone have good numbers on how much
Medicare would increase, and the private insurance costs
decrease. I would bet, without seeing the numbers, a large
aggrigate/socitial cost savings would be realized, along
with considerable cost savings for their employers for their
medical coverage.

This appears to be yet another political attempt by Congress
to pauperize the middle class. Why does Congress and the
governmental bureaucracy hate the American people so much?




Because the privileged class pays them to.

Hawke