Issue 113 Keeping Secrets July 4, 2013

How do you keep a secret safe from prying eyes in an age of computers? Well, there are a few ways how to do just that.

Cryptography: Basically encrypting the messages digitally with only the receiving person or persons having the key to decode the message. This can be as low tech as a cereal code or a piece of digital tech. One group intends to offer up a service that encrypts all your calls. They have been using this program in Iraq and Afghanistan so as to protect Soldiers phone calls to their families back home from terrorists tapping in and targeting their families. Basically it uses the internet to create a link between the two individuals talking. The entire communication is encrypted so that only the two individuals have access to the content of the call or message. It is important to know that the same program must be used by both persons in order to talk for without it the content of the message or call cannot be understood. As an extra security measure the data from the message or call is deleted once the call is complete leaving no trace of contact between the individuals ever having been made. It is not an alternative to the phone company just yet and the service is a simple monthly fee (based on the interview with the individual) but essentially it works like Skype but with security devices installed.

Speed: Communications go very fast. As a result we can talk to each other across the globe. But that speed is not enough. Apparently, communications being delivered faster can prevent intercepts by those trying to listen in. Currently in testing, quantum communications which use photons to communicate are seen as the next big thing in communication. The information moves so fast that no listening device can catch the signal. Current prototypes are wired but future ones will be wireless. On top of being fast, many communications using this still experimental technology are encrypted as well. Reason being is that technology will not remain stagnant and a quantum interceptor may be eventually developed. However, these devices come with another unique feature; you can tell if your communication is being tapped into. So you can instantly drop the call in that instance. It does this by reading any disruptions in the signal (those disruptions are those accessing the call) aka, the photons in the communication are being disrupted. So speed in communication is now life when it comes to keeping a call safe.

Low tech: Others may simply have to remove themselves from as much of the tractable world as possible. Social Networking sites and search engines track your every move. GPS devices in phones keep tabs on you and the government or clever hacker can turn them on even when they are off. Mot to mention call logs are always recorded. The internet though has more privacy so long as you know which services to use (ones that conceal and protect your private information) or have the right program.

Get security: Cyber security firms are a growing business. Former government officials and hackers are getting into the act. Even former spooks whose job it is to find people are now switching roles to enable certain people to disappear. They know the governments along with others are watching and now they want you to pay to keep your secrets and your personal life safe. So expect more services similar to companies like life lock, or hacktivists looking to make a quick buck to come to your aid.

Conclusion: With the thought of people looking at your private email and postings on the internet, people are feeling violated. And I don't blame them. Probably the simplest thing to do is to either limit your use of the search engines and the social networking sights or do like I do, don't post anything or search anything that can potentially be used against you. It really is that simple. Don't post or search what would embarrass you, your family or your friends. Hope you find this information helpful. Good luck.

Issue 112 Fuel from food July 3, 2013

We have all heard of bio-fuels like ethanol and bio-diesel. But why is it good and why is it bad? Let's analyze.

The good: Currently we use "fossil fuels" like oil. These fossil fuels are limited due to the amount we are able to access and the amount we have yet to discover. And thus is not considered a renewable resource. Bio-fuels on the other hand are renewable. They are made from plants like corn, switch grass and even oils from animals slaughtered at the slaughter house to make our hamburgers. We basically grow the fuel we need to run our cars and power our homes and appliances.

Neutral: It has been proven (or at the very least debated extensively) that these bio-fuels are no cleaner than there fossil fuel counter parts. Basically they put about the same amount of pollutants in the air. Environmentally speaking, they still cause ecological damage as these fuels are extracted from crops. This means cutting away at forests and other parts of the natural environment to grow them. So it can be just as bad as an oil spill in some instances.

The bad: The biggest issue is that these fuels take more energy to produce than they put out. Think of it this way, it takes a full gallon of gasoline to make just a half gallon of bio-fuel. As such, bio-fuels while bio-degradable have less power out put. On top of this, growing bio-fuels can be considered a security threat. By using more crops to make fuel rather than food you limit the food supply. It is great for the farmer as he makes allot of cash, but it means that to meet out food requirements we have to get it from other countries. This may inadvertently make us dependant on food from other countries and thus controllable. Don't think it has happened before; well it has to small island nations during the age of imperialism. The Dutch East India Company had islanders grow cash crops and forbade the growing of food crops. This made the islanders dependant on food from the company. If the islanders rebelled, then the company simply cut off their food supply. But a more pressing issue may result. Food being grown for other purposes will inherently make food prices rise and may result in people being priced out. Basically, they cannot afford to buy food. This has happened in Ireland (Great Irish Famine) and Nepal. The result was an artificial famine despite plenty of food.

Conclusion: Are bio-fuels worth it? Maybe not. However, the fact that we are considering alternatives is a good thing. Currently wind and solar are still developing but are not efficient enough to work large scale. Natural gas is just as polluted as gas despite the larger number of sources from which it can be obtained. Hydrogen can defiantly work, but it has no infrastructure to take advantage of the "clean" technology. Whatever the solution to our energy woes, unfortunately bio-fuels are not it.

Issue 111 Data collection and spys July 2 2013

Data collection or data mining is a practice of accumulating data and then putting all that data together to make use of that information. This information is your phone records, your tax records, surveillance camera footage from anywhere. The list goes on and on. So I'm here to tell you that big brother is always watching.

They know what TV you’re watching: When you turn on your TV, the cable provider knows through the box that you are watching a particular channel at a given time and thus knows what show you are watching. Same thing with certain forms of radio, they know you are tuned into a certain frequency and thus what you’re listening too. It is disturbing to know that they know your likes and interests. And guess what, it is all used by the companies to sell more ads and thus the information is up for sale. In fact this information was used by the Democratic Party to help President Obama win his second term in office by looking at who was watching what and when so they could buy ads and commercial time so as to get those likely to vote out to vote for the President. The republicans lagged behind but their strategists predict that in the next election such information will play a crucial role.

They know what you’re searching: Just like with the cable providers, the internet search providers and social networking services know what you are searching and how often you view those pages. These are primarily used to sell ads so that they make money. Think this is wrong, well you agree to them collecting your data when you downloaded their technology to use on your computer. Again, this information is up for grabs and in fact does not require a warrant by police to view as it is not considered by law a personal conversation. Civil rights activists are up in arms however to make such information require a warrant as per the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

They are watching you: Public cameras are also used to gather information. They can know when you passed through a red light or with just a simple search program can track you from your house to your work place. Adding in simple devices like easy pass and membership cards like a cvs card or a discount card as per your exclusive membership enable them to also know what stores you stopped in and what you bought in each of those stores. You are being tracked everywhere you go.

Data miners: A data miner finds and collects all this information, all without the need for a warrant to get a clear picture of your habits and interests. Such people work for both the government and for private agencies for spying, for locating missing children, to just selling advertisements. It even helps with public relations with respect to getting a president re-elected. Your information is no longer yours to keep.

Conclusion: You are being watched by literally everyone. They know when you use your cell phone and what number you’re calling. The only thing at the governmental level they cannot do is listen to your actual conversations or read your mail (physical and electronic) with out a warrant. Civil liberties activists are suing the government to make all such data apply to the forth amendment so as to protect citizens from any more intrusions by the government with some going a step further to stop private companies from collecting and keeping our data as well. Be aware, big brother along with everyone else is watching.

Issue 110 State's ripping off our healthcare July 1 2013

Did you know that the State and local governments in the United States are reaping the benefits of our high priced health care and are in fact making it more expensive? Well, that is exactly what they are doing according to the Forbs article "How State Governments Raise Costs and Rip hundreds of Billions off the Federal Government using Health Insurance Premium Taxes" by Avik Roy (posted 5/25/2013.

How they rip us off: The article used Ohio as an example to demonstrate how States raise costs on health care. Ohio charges a 5.5% sales tax on Insurance premiums with an additional 1% state health insurance tax. In 2011, the average employer based plan for a single person is $5,025 which resulted in the average Ohioan spending an extra $327 a year just in taxes alone. Yup, that’s our money that we thought was going to health care that isn’t.

It gets worse: The Federal Government spends $300 billion a year (approx) through the tax code to subsidize employer sponsored health insurance. With Ohio being 3.7% of the U.S. population that means $11.1 Billion of that subsidy flows through Ohio and then gets taxed as part of a person’s individual insurance tax. This results in Ohio collecting an extra $721.5 million a year in tax revenue just from the federal money going to subsidize these plans.

Yup it gets even worse: Medicare and Medicaid are also affected. $50 billion is spent on Medicare part D and another $200 billion on Medicare advantage. Over half of Medicare enrollees are in private managed care plans accounting for around $150 billion a year. Using the same math the federal government spends $400 billion on privately managed Medicare and Medicaid plans with $40 billion a year that States collect in tax revenue by taxing those premiums. Altogether that is about $75 billion a year to State governments due to an accounting trick.

Yea, we dug our own grave: These costs and the amount of money that States are going to rip us off in taxes are only going to increase and that is partly due to subsidies in Obama care (the affordable care act). This accounting trick was used to justify Medicaid’s expansion. As a result, with the overall Expansion State revenues will increase by 1.6 to 1.7 billion over 10 years. Ohio Medicaid expansion is an additional 2.5 billion, but 1.7 billion will be paid in taxes with possibly the whole amount offloaded onto tax payers through the same accounting gimmick.

The States are not alone: Counties, cities and towns may also tax premiums and services. In 2012, the total combined State and local sales tax rate in the U.S. was 9.61% leading to an extra 29 billion (approx) being spent by the federal government to make up the costs. If you add taxes specific to health care premiums and that number is raised to 30 to 35 billion in spending. Let’s face it, we are being ripped off.

Hospitals are not immune: Provider taxes are paid at the hospital and are passed onto consumers by charging higher prices. These same taxes are used to rip off Medicaid subsidies because States set their own reimbursement rates for Medicaid and thus States increase the rates equal to the increase in taxation allowing for the hospitals to come out revenue neutral at the end with the federal government paying the costs in taxation through the reimbursement from the federal government.

Conclusion: So what is the answer to this major spending increase that is ripping off taxpayers and increasing our health care costs? Simple, we have to stop taxing health care premiums, services and hospitals. Apparently these taxes alone increase the health care costs on over 180 billion Americans with private coverage and make it costlier to subsidize the coverage for the poor. That is over half the U.S. population being affected by higher health care costs and it is time we eliminate this extra expense that harms the poor, the elderly, the uninsured and the average American who just wants to get and stay healthy. This is why certain taxes should not exist.

Issue 109 The entitlements Conclusion June 28, 2013

The Conclusion:

            There are many solutions to the problems of Social Security and its partners Medicare, Medicaid and its ilk. It is however, up to the American people to seize upon one of them and say “I want that one.” The politicians will not do anything until they are forced to for they fear to act under the threat that they may be unelected. It is time we choose America. Let us save our retirement by selecting so of what I think are the best ideas.

Means test everything: Those who are receiving lots of money should not get any benefits while those with little money should get more. Social Security was designed during the Great Depression to help the elderly retire, open up jobs for the young who would replace these seniors in the work force, and help avoid ageism as seniors were being forced out of jobs due to age discrimination. Now we have millionaires who want to collect for some strange reason and they should be blocked from doing so.

Eliminate the Contribution cap: The amount of taxes paid per year toward Social Security and Medicare is capped. So the really rich finish paying within the first pay check of the New Year and then they are done. At the same time, lower middle class and the poor continue to pay large sums of money often times never reaching the cap. The result is less money at retirement. Thus, I say reduce the tax levels on everyone and make it so that everyone contributes for life (except double taxation). This will allow Social Security to have the funds it needs thanks to the richer portions of society. At the same time those reduced levels mean fewer contributions by the lower middle class or the poor. This is where supplemental forms of Social Security and Medicare kick in to give them a little extra boost. Also, the system still acts as a safety net for if the rich somehow fall below the poverty line, then they will get the money they put in the first place.

Make it accurate: Currently Social Security and Medicare are adjusted through the cost of living adjustment (COLA). By making this adjustment for inflation more accurate we can ensure that people get only the money they need to continue buying bread, milk, etc. Combined with means testing means more accurate adjustments of benefits so that those who are impoverished in a high expense area get more, while those in an affordable area get less. Basically, together these would insure custom benefits for each individual.

Make it Personal: Both Congressman Paul Ryan and Governor Mike Huckabee have the right idea. Make it so that individuals that hold off retirement longer can expect a greater rate of return and make it so that the money can be passed on to their children and grandchildren. Ryan does this by eliminating the age requirement for Social Security by being able to collect when a certain amount of money has accumulated and has the option for an investment type version of Social Security. Governor Huckabee would use the lock box type of plan by having the money become an actual account, like a banks. I would combine both ideas. Ryan's idea of eliminating the age requirement would end the debate on age entirely with his plan stipulating you must be able to receive money equivalent to 120% of the poverty level in the traditional system to retire. From there I would use the Governor's ideas of incentives to keep the money in by allowing for interest to be gained for keeping it in longer, while taking Paul Ryan's idea of investments and investing small sums of peoples retirement money into safe funds in the market and in savings bonds (people would have a say in what forms of investments). This would provide a greater pay out at the end as similar programs have worked in Galveston Texas which has an exemption from Social Security and in other countries as well. I find no reason to make two parallel systems like Ryan has done. Simply make Social Security into an actual bank account form the get go, and cut the extraneous crap. From there, if say you never collect, or still have money left in the account after you pass on, the money is added onto your next of kin's amount or other designated beneficiary. An alternative to adding the money to your next of kin’s account would to get a lump sum form the account. Both ideas give a major boost to who ever is going to collect the funds.

Vouchers: Health Care for both Medicare and Medicaid need this version of the system. All a voucher does is give money to a health provider you yourself designate who will then provide your health care. It works the same why as Medicare part D without the excessive amounts of money and paperwork. It already works in school systems, and in the current form of Medicare part D to provide cheap medication to those who otherwise can't afford it. So this option is essential.

Decrease health care costs: I have always found it stupid to put more people on some form of health insurance rather than look at the system and fix it to make it cheap. Part of the reason is patent law with drug patents not expiring for 20 years and Congress possibly being lobbied to increase how long that patent lasts. Let’s face it; corruption is part of the issue. Also, Drug companies have to get approval from the FDA before they can increase or decrease production of a medication. Originally this was meant to prevent price gauging, but has backfired making cheap medications more expensive. Also, allow generic drugs to remain on the market longer, as if that drug still works let it be up to the doctor and patient to decide if that medication is still right for them. As to health insurance, let people buy across State lines. States limit coverage per State for each insurance registered in their area. As such you may be paying for more health care than you need, or possibly even less than you need. By removing the States from this equation, and letting people buy from anywhere and everywhere even insurance in other countries (I find no problem when it comes to free trade with respect to health insurance) this will reduce overall costs. Also, don't tax hospitals, Doctors offices, health care premiums and the like. That only adds to the total cost of health care. All this combined will aid in reducing health care costs to more manageable levels. From there the non-health care related issues increase costs, like patent law, taxation on business on the Federal, State and local levels. So by allowing free trade in health insurance, insurance companies can more to the cheapest State to operate in and thus allow them to reduce costs to consumers even further.

Costs at doctor’s offices can be reduced further by eliminating waste paper work from government institutions. Doctors have multiple forms they have to fill out to get reimbursed from the government for Medicare and Medicaid. By switching to a voucher system here, it reduces the paper work as the insurance enforces the rules rather than the government. Thus money is saved at all levels, not to mention time and effort. Also, malpractice lawsuits are a major issue as well. By implementing loser pays lawsuits (where the loser pays the costs of the winner) it will decrease the overall costs of fictitious lawsuits as most will not occur or they will just lose in court and the doctor loses no money if they were in the right in the first place. For the rare chance that the person in the right will loose, there is a new industry of looser pays insurance providers ready and waiting to start work. I am not saying the costs will be completely reduced to the point that we may not need health insurance, but at least costs will be more manageable no matter ones age.

Conclusion: We can change the system. It will be hard, and people will push back out of fear of change despite the fact that change is inevitable. I do not believe that Social Security or any form of welfare or safety net will be there for me let alone for my parents when I retire. Change must happen and I believe the aforementioned ideas are the best changes to start off with short of tearing up the whole system and stating over. Let's make the change that we need to happen.

 

 

Issue 108 The entitlements part 4 June 27, 2013

  Social Security, Change it!:

            Social Security is the final piece of the entitlement trilogy, that’s if you exclude the other programs created through the Social Security act of 1935.  We talked about sending Medicaid and all the other programs down to the State level and reducing the costs of health care to reduce the financial burden to Medicare, so what do we do with the old age insurance entitlement.  One option to combined Social Security with Medicare, a voucher can also be used, but some sort of system would be developed where a portion of the voucher would go into a HSA while the rest would go into a general savings account.  In this case, bureaucratic waste will be reduced for you are applying for a single benefit rather than two.  There would be a single body to manage the fund with a single bureaucratic body in place to manage benefits.  Additionally, if the fusion of the two were to happen, all money owed to Medicare would disappear from the national debt as it will no longer exist.  This however is an extreme case for if Medicare should fail for any reason Social Security can fill in the gap. 

 Some ideas:   We could allow people to opt out of Medicare for larger Social Security payments.  This would mean higher payouts for people receiving Social Security.  However, this would also mean draining away funds from Medicare which could prove detrimental.  So this idea may never come to pass. 

 Age increase:       The most unpopular idea is raising the retirement age.  At current, the retirement age is slowly being raised to 67 compliments of President Ronald Reagan (so check your eligibility as full benefits are no longer available to those age 65 if you were born in a certain year).  The simplest way to raise the retirement age is to make it 10 to 12 years prior to the average American life expectancy which is currently age 78.  If we set eligibility within 10 years of life expectancy you could receive full benefits at age 68.  You could then set future age eligibility to life expectancy so as the average life expectancy changes when a person can retire will also change.  To provide stability the calculated life expectancy for eligibility would be taken every five to ten years and those under age 55 would be affected by life expectancy fluctuations.  Once you turn age 55 the age at which you can receive benefits would be set unless that life expectancy some how decreases at which time you may receive your benefits earlier.  We are not going to make a group of seniors wait to receive benefits if those younger then them can receive it earlier, as it would be unfair.  This fluctuation should not happen often though as one, life expectancy would be factored in every five to ten years (I recommend ten) and in general life expectancy is supposed to increase not decrease in modern and developed societies. 

 Making calculations accurate:   The next idea is to reduce inflation adjustments.  In other words, change the formula to more accurately calculate for inflation so as to more accurately adjust payments.  A step up from this is price indexing where benefits are based on the price of food or other items.  In this case, the highest priced item, let’s say milk, is used and based on its price your benefits will be adjusted so no matter what you will always be able to afford milk and other produce no matter how much it costs.  (This idea is also used by Paul Ryan and his budget plan)

 Higher payouts?:     Governor Mike Huckabee had a solution where he would have Social Security provide an incentive to work longer by promising a higher pay out when you decide to collect.  The longer you work, the more you will receive.  In addition, Governor Huckabee wanted to offer a lump sum upon death of the retiree to a chosen beneficiary with whatever remained in the account.  A different solution would be ending the cap on Social Security contributions as you can only put in a given amount per year.  This would allow for a continuous flow of funds into Social Security especially from the more financially better off in our society.  This solution will however, hurt the upper middle class and higher who would be suffering the equivalent of a massive tax increase. However, if we decrease the payroll tax (which supplies Social Security and Medicare part A with money) this pain can be mitigated.   We could also tax Social Security benefits across the board without exception, but this again would hurt American citizens this time by decreasing the size of the money they receive ( i am not in favor of any form of double taxation like this).

 Means testing:      Probably the best solution is to means test recipients based on their income after they retire.  So if you are over a certain amount of income you may not receive any Social Security benefits (or Medicare for that matter).  However, if you should fall below the legal limits you would be allowed to receive benefits, but only up to a specified amount.  If you are a person below the poverty line and are receiving benefits you will get supplemental funds from Social Security.  This supplement will decrease as you get more revenue until your income combined with your benefits is equal to the poverty line or greater.  At any time if you should fall below the poverty line or meet the eligibility requirements you should be able to receive benefits. 

Personal Account:      None of these solutions prevent the Federal government from borrowing from Social Security and putting it back in a financial whole.  What does however is replacing the current system with a defined contribution plan, better known as a personal savings (retirement) account.  This comes in two forms, a real account where it is in a persons name with the worker deciding how much is invested resulting in an incentive to save as the worker will get a larger payout and the governments’ incentive to keep benefits in check.  The other form is a book keeping entry where people in the system may be afforded limited choices of investments like government bonds with rates set and guaranteed by the government.  This is a stark contrast to the current system where all the money is pooled and the payout is decided based on how much you put in.  The money in a defined contribution plan is literally yours and because it is yours, the government cannot borrow against it.  However, the government can provide a secondary retirement benefit through the general revenue which will be provided to low income workers who retire without adequate funds in their accounts.  In each form of the defined contribution plan people are taxed at a specific rate and credited to a virtual account with the government setting the rate of return.  Then at retirement, the total is invested in an annuity (no more regular payments) and is then given to the retiree.  This is already working in Galveston Texas where they were allowed to opt out of Social Security for a system that works like a 401k.  As a result, the recipients there routinely get a higher average payout in comparison to those on the traditional Social Security system.  (Paul Ryan's plan does this too).

            The only problem with the defined contribution plan is how to transition to the system.  To properly transition, the current payroll tax would have to continue while the new system is started for people entering the workforce, or payroll taxes would end entirely and benefits paid out of the general revenue.  Either way it costs the American tax payer.  Of course other solutions like means testing, price indexing and Governor Huckabees incentive to hold out longer for a larger payout may reduce the pain of this transition step by saving money.  At the same time the government would have to be prohibited from borrowing from the fund which would be kept to make up for short falls and amass funds for the final leg of the transition.

A voucher can work here too:   Another alternative is to turn the Social Security system into a voucher program using means testing and living conditions in combination to determine how much each individual gets which would always be enough to afford the area you’re living in.  This also can be used to aid in the transition to a defined contribution plan, or be a sensible alternative for those who will never make enough money to retire.  At this point, Social Security could even be turned over to the States to provide even more customized benefits.   

 

Conclusion:  We have a lot of ideas to fix Social Security, but it is all a matter of finding the best

one(s).  We can no longer afford to be fearful of change for the system as we know it is already dead.  

 

See you tomorrow for my Conclusion. 

Issue 107 The entitlements part 3 June 26, 2013

  Medicare: Taking care of seniors:

            Medicare is the next most loved program after Social Security.  While it is hard to bring about change to such a popular program, the fixes themselves are relatively easy.  For one, means test it so that only those who cannot afford health care will receive benefits.  This makes it cheaper to run as less people will be using the system. 

 

Vouchers:  An additional modification can turn Medicare into a voucher system.  How this works is that the enrollee will receive a monthly lump sum into a health care savings account (HSA).  The money in the HSA will be un-taxable as the money going in has already been taxed, unless you want double taxation (they already double tax us with Social Security benefits for we were taxed to put the money in and then we are taxed for taking the money out).  That money in the HSA can then be spent on any medical procedure, medicine, doctor visit or monthly health insurance premium.  The HSA can have its funds supplemented via private funds being put in or as an addition the money can be used to invest in health care related industries to get higher rates of return to further supplement your HSA with the interest earned. An HSA has an even bigger benefit, no paper work for the doctor.  The only potential for abuse would be for who receives the voucher.  This means only recipients would have to be policed and doctors would have more free time to look after patients rather than paperwork.  Think a voucher wont work, well look at Medicare part D which runs using something similar to a voucher program.  Here the retiree is given money which is then used to buy health insurance to provide for their prescription drugs.  Also, Medicare part D is the only part of Medicare that is under budget.

 More solutions:   Other solutions to reduce overall costs to the health care system come in the form of freeing up the health care systems restrictions.  These solutions are; one, allow people to buy health insurance from any company any where in the United States and allow associations and groups to provide their own basic health care customized to their employees should they desire it.  This solution ends the State monopolies on health insurance and the health insurance industries monopoly on health insurance.  Basically each employer would create their own form of coverage for their employees and if the employee wants more coverage of a special type of coverage they can buy out of State without the State government deciding what has to be covered and what shouldn't.  As a result, with this new found competition, health care costs and health insurance costs should drop.  This also makes Medicare far less expansive as it has to dish out less money to cover procedures and medicines.  Two, make it so drug companies can produce their medications in unlimited quantities.  Currently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) restricts how much of a medication can be produced in the given year.  This drives up costs on some drugs if demand for a drug peeks, while demand for another drug decreases which causes a financial loss to the drug company causing them to raise the prices of their other medications to compensate.  By doing this you decrease costs on medications which will allow drug companies to have a steady stream of money to develop new medications while making it cheaper for Americans to buy medication and for health insurers and government health care to cover the costs of higher priced medicines. 

  Why are we taxing this stuff:     The next solution to reduce medical costs and reduce costs to programs like Medicare and Medicaid is to stop taxing medical coverage as it is not income.  Currently the IRS treats medical coverage by employers and individuals as income, and thus it is taxed.  The only time an individual should be taxed (if at all) is when we pay our monthly premium.  While the only time the insurance company should pay taxes is on their yearly earnings.  But the coverage itself is not income, and taxing it drives up costs of doctor visits, treatments and health insurance premiums.  The result is a more costly health care system.  (next Monday will explain this issue in greater detail) 

More radical:     The final idea for Medicare is you can bring it down to the State level, which at current is a highly unlikely scenario.  If we were to bring it down to the State level we would have to do something similar to what we talked about with Medicaid.  This would mean means testing combined with the living expenses adjustment, specialized clinics for seniors which can be combined with the ones for Medicaid. Specialist homes for seniors where private ones are unavailable, which also can be combined with the specialist homes for the disabled.  Maybe a system that has seniors treated in their own home to reduce facility costs while maintaining care (some States are experimenting with this model like Ohio). 

Conclusion:    The goal of Medicare is to care for our senior citizens.  There are numerous other options available including changing eligibility requirements and what benefits are provided.   It is really up to us to choose which one protects our seniors the best and make it happen.

 

See you tomorrow for Social Security.