I would humbly suggest that you explain to the people something very important, and as simple as the dew: there is a difference between saving money, and making somebody else pay. We save money when we get more for the same price, or pay less for the same amount of stuff, or don't buy stuff we don't really need. However, when you join Joe Lieberman and the Chamber of Commerce in proposing raising the eligibility age for Medicare, and all the other so-called "spending cuts" which you are apparently offering in exchange for nothing, that is not "saving money."
What it does accomplish is to compound the misfortune of illness or injury, and the burdens of growing old. Either somebody will still pay for the medical care of people age 65-66 -- specifically, they themselves, whatever they may have, or their children -- or the rest of us will just end up paying even more, although a year or two later. Or else they will die sooner, which indeed means spending less money but it is not the same thing as "saving money" because we failed to purchase what was needed. (You can save a lot of money by not paying the rent but you will end up homeless.)
We can indeed save money on health care, but this has nothing to do with cutting Medicare benefits. On the contrary.
Is that so difficult to explain that you don't dare try?
Discussion of public health and health care policy, from a public health perspective. The U.S. spends more on medical services than any other country, but we get less for it. Major reasons include lack of universal access, unequal treatment, and underinvestment in public health and social welfare. We will critically examine the economics, politics and sociology of health and illness in the U.S. and the world.
his stupid compromises never get him, or us anywhere. But I guess he thinks it makes him look good...
ReplyDelete???
More common sense and plain old-fashioned analysis is needed here.