Could You Die Faster? Medicare’s Broke.

By Kathy Kristof | May 15, 2009 |

The wolf really is at the door.

For years Social Security and Medicare have been saying that they’re running out of money. But, until now, the date of insolvency was years away.

The just-released Social Security trustees report says that Medicare will be spending more than it brings in this year. In less than a decade, the system will have run through all of its savings and be incapable of paying bills.

Social Security is slightly better off.  By 2037–about the same time as GenX and GenY will want to punch out of the working world–Social Security won’t have the money to pay full benefits.

When the systems stop running surpluses — that’s now — it’s also bad for taxpayers because the government has borrowed all the money out of the so-called “trust fund” to finance current operations. When those I.O.U. have to be repaid, there is less money for roads, parks, the military and every other service the government provides.

The check’s not in the mail…

What happens to beneficiaries when Social Security and Medicare run out of dough? I called Bruce Schobel, president-elect of the American Academy of Actuaries and one of the nation’s top experts, to find out. The answer isn’t pretty.

The systems would continue collecting taxes, so they wouldn’t be completely insolvent. Social Security, for example, would find itself about 25% short of having enough to pay all benefits. But the system couldn’t simply pay less.

“They don’t have authority to pay partial benefits, so they would have to delay sending out checks until they had the money,” said Schobel. “At first that would mean that checks would be a couple of days late. But, they’d get consistently later and later.”

No cash, no health care

The same would happen with Medicare. But instead of consumers getting stiffed, it would be doctors and hospitals. It’s no stretch to imagine sick seniors being turned away at the door. No cash, no service. Be sick somewhere else.

If the Obama administration doesn’t fix Medicare–and quick–millions of retirees may have to buy private health coverage or promise to pay their doctors themselves. That’s not GenX’s problem. That’s going to hit current retirees and the Baby Boom first.

Tough Rx

Fixing Medicare is no easy task. Americans either must pay exorbitant taxes to finance the existing system, or they need to find ways to significantly cut costs. That requires more dramatic solutions than even what the Obama administration is discussing.

In fact, many experts believe that the only way to get Medicare to balance is to address a thicket of thorny mortality questions. Do we, as a nation, forestall death at all costs? The vast majority of health care dollars are spent in the last few months of life.

Do we restrict how much government money each person can spend on medicine, telling those faced with life-threatening diseases to chose between death and bankruptcy?

Do we demand healthy choices for public support? In other words, if you smoke, overeat or drink to excess, should the government refuse to pay your medical bills?

Or do you restrict the system’s costs in other ways?

Should the government simply become a backstop for catastrophic care, telling seniors that they need to handle the basics–the cost of doctors visits and prescriptions, for instance–on their own? If the goverment pays for care, should it be able to recover the cost from the recipient’s estate before heirs get their share?

Never retire

Schobel expects Congress and the Obama administration to come up with a solution before Social Security can’t pay benefits, but he admits that these problems have been brewing for decades without a serious move to fix them. The fixes for Social Security are far simpler than for Medicare, but they’re also not popular. The actuary group offers a game (it’s instructive, but not particularly fun) on its web site to help consumers understand the choices, which boil down to these:

  • Hike the retirement age. “Normal” retirement age is already rising to 67 for those born in 1960. In future, you might not be able to collect full retirement benefits until you’re 70.
  • Raise taxes by either hiking the tax rate, which already eats up 15.2% of wages to fund both Social Security and Medicare, or by making more income subject to tax. Right now, Social Security taxes are collected on your first $106,800 in wages. After that, you only pay Medicare tax.
  • Cut costs and that means cutting benefits. We’ve already discussed some of the ways to cut costs for Medicare. For Social Security there are two basic options–reduce monthly payments or  ”means-test” benefits to cut out the rich (who, incidentally, paid the most into the system). Or both.

What now?

Maybe there are other solutions. It’s time to be part of the debate.

Is there a sliding scale to the value of life? Is health care a right, or a privilege? At what point can the government say that keeping a citizen alive costs too much? Should health care be handled like hotels–the best going only to those who can afford it?

What do you think? Do we raise taxes, cut benefits, or simply let future generations twist in the wind? Every minute that this problem festers, the options get worse.

 
Reply to Story

MoneyWatch TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    verycold

    08/05/09 | Report as spam

    Susan

    I wanted to respond to your "Could You Die Faster"?
    I am a conservative 58 yr old white woman. My husband and I both worked for Baxter for a number of years. Both my parents ended up in nursing homes the last year of their lives. So did my MIL. So as a family we know a thing or two about drugs and nursing homes.
    I have repeatedly blogged about talking about the end of life decisions. I am a cancer survivor having been diagnosed when I was 43. I had two operations but declined radiation and chemo because my cancer was early stage and I chose to go with the odds. You can see that thus far my decision appears to have been a wise one for me. I have to say that the medical community was very hostile about that choice. Over the years I have had discussions about my choice with many specialists happy it worked out, but not sure where I fit in regarding stats.
    My experience with the nursing homes was very personal and has influenced my feelings today. What I saw was a good bit of neglect, lack of personal attention, and rarely a visitor. I should say that my dad was in a nursing home in NC. My mother in nursing home in TX. My MIL was in Fl. And so, I think I can safely say they all have a lot in common. Most of the patients living in those homes are a semblance of who they once were. They really died a long time ago, but their bodies have kept going. For the most party most patients are left there to die, with the occasional visitor on holidays and if somebody is in town. My sister and I went daily to the nursing home for the last year of my mom's life. The same was true when my dad was dying in NC. I went all the time and just hung out with him. It was tough. In both cases, I literally stopped my life in order to be able to take care of them. I know many cannot do that, or choose to not do that. I am not blaming any
    body,
    but saying that nursing homes pretty much are housing the dead.
    When I had my cancer surgeries in Il, almost all the patients at the Onocolgist office and at the surgeon's office were elderly with many barely able to move around. I think that broke my heart more than the fact that at 43 I got cancer myself. I knew I would survive and still had time to at least enjoy my life for awhile. Those patients would barely get through the surgery let alone have a full life after they recovered. I have watched many, many people with cancer decline in front of me and end up dying. I can't make vague generalizations, but I can say we were doing too much in the way of prolonging lives that ended long ago. I wouldn't want that for myself. I should be able to get medical help from my doctor if I want to end my life. I should be able to make that choice which is essentially the health care discussion we are currently having. CHOICE.
    I always say this although many would disagree that animals aren't people, but my love for my animals is as deep. I have put many of my beloved pets down over the years, including two horses that meant the world to me. I just recently put down my golden retriever that was 15. It hurt real bad, but he was faced with a tumor out of control and a surgery that would be hard on him. I let him go knowing it was the right thing. He was still happy and able to run and I didn't want him to lose his dignity.
    We do need to have the end of life discussion. Our churches need to have this talk. Our government needs to have this talk. Somebody with clout and clarity needs to speak on this issue. As a nation, we must think to the future knowing others after us should have the life that was offered to us.

  •  
    2

    Kathy Kristof

    08/05/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Could You Die Faster? Medicare's Broke.

    Thank you so much for sharing your heartfelt story.

    Discussing end-of-life options is so incredibly important
    because I believe many people are kept alive long past the
    point when they'd prefer to go to heaven. If you haven't
    expressed your wishes clearly and to someone willing to
    advocate for you--even when that means helping you die--
    doctors feel compelled to keep you alive at all costs. I think
    that's a horrible way to die.

    We really need to discuss the cost of keeping terminally ill
    people alive, too, because we are robbing the living by
    drawing out death.

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
Click Here
advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement

Kathy Kristof

Kathy Kristof is a syndicated personal finance columnist, speaker and author of three books, including the recently updated Investing 101 (Bloomberg, 2008).

Kathy Kristof

track your portfolio