Medicare running out of money

[joesxm3]

I saw on tv today that Medicare had stated that they moved their run out of money date back by one year to 2019 (vs 2041 for SS).

People here talk about planning for less SS but seem to talk in terms of paying health insurance until Medicare kicks in.

If Medicare is projected to run out in 2019, shouldn't some skepticism be applied to the portion of health insurance medicare will take care of?

I saw some other show that was speculating that in 20 or so years there will be some pretty spectacular advances in health care technology (see books by Ray Kurzwiel). However the price for this will be immense. They speculated that 25% of income would go for health insurance - but not having it would be a virtual death sentence if you needed organs regenerated or ateries scrubbed by nanobots.

I guess this is really two topics, but both seem to lead to worries that we are not building in enough for health care costs - especially future exotic stuff. Maybe LTC costs might switch to being spent on future exotic technology.

 

[d]

they moved their run out of money date back by one year to 2019 (vs 2041 for SS)

we should no doubt congratulate our congress for a job well done.

 

[MasterBlaster]

Joesxm:

What exactly was your point ?

Was it that medicare can't possibly cover all of the boomers as they retire to the level that people on Medicare are covered today ? Well that's not news to anyone paying attention.

Was it that the current rate of growth in medical expenses is unsustainable ? Also that shouldn't be news to anyone paying attention.

Was it that the sky is falling and we should all duck and cover ??[

 

[joesxm3]

My point was that the models I see people talking about seem to be discounting the value of future SS payments, but not applying similar logic to Medicare.

My impression is that the models include primary health insurance premiums to age 65 and then maybe medicare supplement. Maybe there should be health insurance costs past 65. Maybe this is assumed but I missed it being new to the board.

My second point was that if there are "magical" advances in medical technology in the next 20-40 years but they are super expensive, then anyone that has ER'd and living on a fixed LBYM annual amount might not be able to get them. It would also mean that if they figure ways of replacing parts and extend the life span to 110-120 years it might affect the modeling.

 

[FinallyRetired]

IMHO worrying about Medicare 20+ years from now is like worrying about the arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic. Medicare will be broken long before then because the US health system is broken. In 20 years we will have a new health system, probably similar to what exists in Canada and some European countries, but hopefully better.

 

[samclem]

Well, if the US "fixes" the health care system so it is more like Canada or Europe and we thereby extinguish that nasty, evil profit motive, we'll end up with the same degree of medical/pharmaceutical innovation as Canada and Europe have provided the world for the last 30 years. That should nix any ideas of nanobots, organ regeneration, or living to 120+ years. It will help fix both Medicare and the Social Security shortfalls. A "modest proposal" as we say. . .

 

[GLM]

No mater what I think it will be different and probably expensive. My best investment to that probability- a healthy diet and almost daily aerobics with weights 3 times a week. Prevention : priceless.

Besides always said we are saving all this $$$ for ER I don't want the second wife to spend it !

 

[joesxm3]

good point. eating right and exercising is the best retirement plan you can have. It will also keep costs doen later.

the other important thing is that if you are going to benefit from some development 20 years from now you have to keep in relatively good shape to make it that far.

Unfortunately, being 50 I may be a bit too late to ride the wave of new technology. I think people 10 or 20 years younger who do the right things now have a lot to look forward to. It will be mind boggling.

 

[Cb]

I just had knee surgery (ACL & meniscus repairs) today. During my visit with the doc last week to discuss various options, he repeatedly used the phrase, "...but with guys your age that approach doesn't always work quite as well..."

I'm 47, of average weight, and am in better than average shape. It seems to me our teeth, hair, skin, nails, joints, flexibility, muscle mass, vision, hearing, sexual and mental abilities gradually worsen. I believe it is possible to influence many of those somewhat, but only to a degree. I'm not sure I'd want to have the health of an 85 year old for another 40 years if "organ regeneration" and the like become a reality.

Cb
PS: I think "Nerve blocks" are a good thing though....

 

[tiredofwork]

Joesxm:
Was it that the current rate of growth in medical expenses is unsustainable ? Also that shouldn't be news to anyone paying attention.

At some point the medical system will become more productive and efficient (like some of the other sectors in the economy) and stop growing faster than GDP. Like you said, the current growth is unsustainable. Imagine what robotics will eventually do for surgery. If nothing else, it might reduce the malpractice insurance premium related contribution to medical cost growth.

 

[haha]

My point was that the models I see people talking about seem to be discounting the value of future SS payments, but not applying similar logic to Medicare.

My impression is that the models include primary health insurance premiums to age 65 and then maybe medicare supplement. Maybe there should be health insurance costs past 65. Maybe this is assumed but I missed it being new to the board.

Well, good luck. No insurance company would cover over 65 folks anyway. so just get ready to die.

Ha

 

[chinaco]

Premuims will increase (significantly) for regular Medicare Insurance.

More people will move to HMO style Medicare (with increased premiums).

The US will begin large immigation in the next few years to counterbalance working vs retired.

Quite a number of people will die earlier than expected... In otherwords, not everyone is going to live till 95.

Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (the old HCFA) will begin negotiating what they will pay for drugs.

Politically difficult steps will be taken when there is no choice. Right now, the politicians are just going to wait until it cannot be avoided. That way no one can be faulted for taking tough measures.

Don't worry about Medicare being around... worry about how much more it will cost you!

 

[donheff]

I'm 47, of average weight, and am in better than average shape. It seems to me our teeth, hair, skin, nails, joints, flexibility, muscle mass, vision, hearing, sexual and mental abilities gradually worsen. I believe it is possible to influence many of those somewhat, but only to a degree. I'm not sure I'd want to have the health of an 85 year old for another 40 years if "organ regeneration" and the like become a reality.

I agree. I am bullish on future technology but, at 58, I think my compatriots and I will not benefit from the miraculous changes that are predicted. More likely, we will be able to avoid a heart attack or stroke in our 80s and thus get the "opportunity" to spend our 90s in extended care. Viagra and Cialis may help if the old ladies can stand us.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

only a glutton for punishment would want to live to 120 (with the exception of nords who will still be surfing).

for i would imagine, after watching most all your family & friends die, by 115 you'll be ready to check out as well.

 

[jIMOh]

I saw on tv today that Medicare had stated that they moved their run out of money date back by one year to 2019 (vs 2041 for SS).

People here talk about planning for less SS but seem to talk in terms of paying health insurance until Medicare kicks in.

If Medicare is projected to run out in 2019, shouldn't some skepticism be applied to the portion of health insurance medicare will take care of?

I saw some other show that was speculating that in 20 or so years there will be some pretty spectacular advances in health care technology (see books by Ray Kurzwiel). However the price for this will be immense. They speculated that 25% of income would go for health insurance - but not having it would be a virtual death sentence if you needed organs regenerated or ateries scrubbed by nanobots.

I guess this is really two topics, but both seem to lead to worries that we are not building in enough for health care costs - especially future exotic stuff. Maybe LTC costs might switch to being spent on future exotic technology.

Planning for an infinite expense (health care) appears pointless to me 20 or 30 years out. I will vote for candidates which will state HOW they will reform health care. Hillary keeps saying she will, but I have yet to see her state her plan. She is doing a good job of blaming the problem on various interests... I have not seen how she will fix it though.

 

[Bikerdude]

I believe the U.S. will eventually institute 'rationing' of health care. It will be wrapped in a nice pretty package called 'health care for all'. Most all of us will receive the same level of care depending on how much the government has to spend and a bureaucrat says you qualify for. If you want faster, or better care, you will pay for it yourself.

Sounds just like Canada, England, France and Italy.

 

[FinanceDude]

I believe the U.S. will eventually institute 'rationing' of health care. It will be wrapped in a nice pretty package called 'health care for all'. Most all of us will receive the same level of care depending on how much the government has to spend and a bureaucrat says you qualify for. If you want faster, or better care, you will pay for it yourself.

Sounds just like Canada, England, France and Italy.

Or the govt will close all fast food restaurants, and "voila", problem solved.........

Reminds me of the Lettermen joke:

"It's a sad day in Southern California.........a McDonald's closed, and 6 cardiologists are now out of work"..............

 

[maddythebeagle]

Well, if the US "fixes" the health care system so it is more like Canada or Europe and we thereby extinguish that nasty, evil profit motive, we'll end up with the same degree of medical/pharmaceutical innovation as Canada and Europe have provided the world for the last 30 years. That should nix any ideas of nanobots, organ regeneration, or living to 120+ years. It will help fix both Medicare and the Social Security shortfalls. A "modest proposal" as we say. . .

darn...I always dreamed of living to 120 as a cyborg....

 

[samclem]

only a glutton for punishment would want to live to 120 (with the exception of nords who will still be surfing).

for i would imagine, after watching most all your family & friends die, by 115 you'll be ready to check out as well.

Lots of folks our age say that they wouldn't want to live to be very old. However, when old age comes, most people choose to live one more day. Then another day. Until fate steps in, the default position, for most people, is "I want to live a little longer." At least that's what their actions say.

 

[Eagle43]

I'm aiming for 100. Hope Vanguard is around in 2043.....

 

[megacorp-firee]

My numbers run to 100 also... good news is that when you run the numbers, they will come out the way you want 'em to. If we have replacement parts for everything and the medical technology in place that I think we will. those with the funds will be able to live a long(er) quality life. Check out Kurzweil. He has a number of articles on this. http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=1

hmmmm, ... I might be reassessing and boosting the number upwards.
ditto on Vanguard

 

[lets-retire]

My wife's grandfather lived to his 90's. He was diagnosed with cancer, but he opted to not receive any life prolonging treatment. He was saying his reason was he had buried two wives, all of his friends were dead, and he had to rely on other people to take him places so he couldn't go out and meet new friends. Although he said he wasn't really interested in meeting anybody, because they seemed like kids to him, even those in their 60's. Maybe if there were more people closer to his age he would have been interested in meeting them.

 

[al_bundy]

several years ago i read an article in the NY Times of all places on how seniors in florida were going to see specialists to pretty much socialize. they reported some minor problems but their main reason was to socialize with friends also seeing the doctor just to socialize.

i'll guess congress will start rationing access to doctors first to start cutting some costs as well as rationing end of life care which is the most expensive

 

[FinallyRetired]

I believe the U.S. will eventually institute 'rationing' of health care. It will be wrapped in a nice pretty package called 'health care for all'. Most all of us will receive the same level of care depending on how much the government has to spend and a bureaucrat says you qualify for. If you want faster, or better care, you will pay for it yourself.

Sounds just like Canada, England, France and Italy.

That's pretty much how it worked in Holland when I lived there in the 1980s. Every few blocks had a "house arts," which was a govt paid doctor you had to go to. It only cost a few dollars US to see him, no problem getting an appt, and he was good for 90% of the cases, sniffles, skin rashes, etc. If he couldn't treat it, he refered you to the next level up, the local govt run hospital where they had more extensive testing and treatment facilities, and it was also essentially free. Never experienced that level but from what I heard it was also pretty good. Friend of mine had back surgery there and did well. If you didn't want to use this system, you could opt to see a private physician for big bucks.

I have no idea how much this system cost the Dutch govt, or if it is still this way, but as a pretty healthy person, I had no problem with it. At least it removed the large burden of routine easy to treat cases from the local hospitals.