Should wealthy Americans receive Medicare if they can afford insurance?
Asked by
lataylor (
545)
January 18th, 2009
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
10 Answers
why not?
Everyone should be treated equally.
It’s not really that fair to go “hey you’re 70 and you’re in a wheel chair, but we’re not going to give you this because you have a bit more money than anyone else. bye!”
Everyone who paid into the system should be eligible to received this entitlement.
There is currently a graduated system of monthly premium payments based on income
I believe they should have basic and critical care, regardless. Extended coverage (private rooms, non-essential treatments, etc.) should be left to optional insurance for those who can afford it and want to pay for it. That is (more or less) how it’s set up in Canada.
Some people* who used to be wealthy (however you might define that) were in DC last week testifying before Congress. They had all their money with Madoff and are now practically homeless and bankrupt.
Even stupid and greedy seniors are entitled to be treated equally. I am penalized because I have been a saver and not a spend-thrift. My AARP Medigap premium has a penalty attached to it because I get some tax-free income. Ditto for Medicare B.
*This guy, a friend and neighbor, was neither; Allan Goldstein.
It would be considerate of the wealthy to forgo programs that provide a necessary service to those in need. Mandatory, no. It would be considerate of those on Gov’t retirement to leave SS alone also. Is this going to happen, probably not.
Many people who have no need for Medicare and SS benefits give a lot of money away, because charitable contributions give them a big break with the IRS. Their accountants make them do it. This wouldn’t directly address the moral issue, yet still support equitable wealth redistribution.
Medicare probably wouldn’t have passed if it were seen as a program for the poor. ANy kind of eligibility determination based on income would have changed the way it was perceived. That’s still true today. If you reduce benefits for the wealthy, they may wonder why they support it, or pay into it, and lobby their congress critters to weaken it.
Now, you could eliminate the cap on the amount of income subject to the tax. That might be a better way to even things out. Right now there is a flat tax on everyone except the wealthy, who have a reduced tax. That seems to me to be a more winnable issue.
There is also an incremental yearly increase in Med. B premiums. One is penalized and therefore pays a higher monthly premium acc’ding to income.
Answer this question
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.