Re: Why do wealthy seniors get a cushy health care plan at a tremendously reduced cost, while starving young families pay into FICA for a benefit they don't have now and will never see. Answer that!
There's too much to answer your post in just a single response, but this one is easy - because when the Democrats first proposed Universal Health Care 60 years ago, we had the same debates and name-calling then that we have now. Except, we compromised, we restricted it to seniors, and now citizens 65 and older have wonderful health care, and many go without.
If you want to change that, support health care reform, with a robust public option.
I know you are frustrated with aspects of the current system, but I don't agree with the sentiment that we need to reinvent the wheel. What we need is to understand where all the money is going, and put the waste to better use.
1. You talk about Medicare fraud. We should obviously fix that, but you know it won't fix the whole thing. It's a $50B donut hole, but the total cost of Medicare and Medicaid in 2010 is $726 billion - with only $180 billion being received in Medicare payroll taxes.
2. Providing health care for seniors is the most expensive prospect because that demographic has the most health conditions. Providing a public option gets healthier demographics into the pool, which amortizes what they pay into it over the higher cost seniors.
3. Right now, you seem satisfied with paying money to a corporation, just for the benefit of them getting between you and your doctor. What's so different between a corporation and the government, except that the government doesn't need to make a profit, pay big CEO salaries, or put billions of dollars into executive perks and benefits? Seems like that money would be better spent on actually paying for health care.
4. The government has been successful in negotiating rates with doctors in most respects. Of course, you only hear about the few cases where the negotiated rates are so low that doctors need to close up shop, and that hits media headlines. Of course, when insurance companies do the same thing, that's business. I think having the government to negotiate the rates for more patients ensures that the system is operating efficiently.
Lastly, you claim that rules and regulations are somehow responsible for reducing choice in the market place. That's a novel accusation, but I'd be interested in seeing a non-partisan source on that. IMO, rules and regulations are what's protecting us from the most heinous and unethical of corporate treatments from the big corporations who have a monopoly that the services we depend on.
You seem fine with paying them your money, but adverse to paying the government. I see a sad irony in that.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
