Mitt Romney proposal would privatize part of Medicare

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • ksampow Farr West, Utah
    Nov. 7, 2011 10:02 a.m.

    DR Hall: You missed the point. It may sound nice to say government should pay for all of the health care needs of the poor, but that is not a morally superior position as you and others seem to assert. It is easy to be generous when someone else pays for it. In the current system the "someone else" will be our grandchildren when they are hit with the huge debt we are passing on.

  • Sqweebie Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2011 9:16 a.m.

    If he goes with the voucher plan for medicare that should mean that those who have $100+ taken out of their social security check every month to cover the cost of the medicare premium will then have that money in their pockets.

    It will not be fair/right for the older citizens to have to pay twice for medical coverage and the government in my opinion will be double-dipping into the less fortunate citizens' pockets.

  • DRay Roy, UT
    Nov. 6, 2011 6:11 p.m.

    most of those commenting are making huge assumptions and do not know the specifics...I trust that Romney's plan will be a good one.

    there must be responsible people who understand turning around this nations economic situation will take some sacrifice and a new approach to many things.

  • Allen#1 West Valley, UT
    Nov. 5, 2011 10:28 p.m.

    Why do Republicans want to cut programs that help people but refuse to let the George W. Bush "tax cuts for the rich" to expire?

    Warren Buffet says they should expire. Why do people believe the Tea Party instead of a well known very rich man?

    Why did the railroads cease rail passenger service? Is it because free enterprise will do something ONLY if there is a big profit margin?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Nov. 5, 2011 10:01 p.m.

    Wow! Another Romney article=another Pagan remark.

    Nov. 5, 2011 8:25 p.m.

    @Shaun - if you think we can just bag our entire system on the spot, let government just create free money out of nothing for every possible national need, and that banks should either give away free money to people or operate as government institutions for free loans, you are really in desperate need of economics education. I'm sure even a Jr. High School course could set you straight on some of your most fundamental economic delusions.

  • shaun_ SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Nov. 5, 2011 3:19 p.m.

    @LetsDebate. Banks create money when they loan money. It is called fractional reserve lending. All the federal reserve does is increase bank reserves by buying US treasury's. This allows banks to create more money out of thin air.

    If banks do not create money as you think then where does the so called money come from? Its not depositors money because those are demand accounts. Besides I have never had a bank manager tell me i can not have my money because they lent it out to somebody else.

    Also a quick look at any bank's balance sheet and income statement would show banks do create money.

    My entire point is our money system is flawed which causes us to have to pay taxes. I am not uneducated, in fact I feel pretty good because I actually know how our money system works.

  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    Nov. 5, 2011 2:30 p.m.

    I had a knee replacement in Canada. It took 18 months from the day of application to the surgery. That is a long wait. SO much for socialized medicine.

  • twinkleberry67 Layton, UT
    Nov. 5, 2011 12:39 p.m.

    I have, and have had, many aging relatives that I had to assist in caring for and I am all too familiar with how Medicare works. By law, upon reaching age 65, Medicare is the primary insurance whether it is desired or not. Many of these relatives already had insurance coverage that they considered satisfactory and were not only shocked to be forced to give this up, but how many fewer treatment options were available under Medicare. This is even worse when a specialist is needed, so many times care wasnt covered until as a last resort, off we went to the ER. Then we got a massive bill from the hospital because little if any of the care was covered. The government is the reason for out of control costs and sorely needs to vacate the healthcare business.

    Nov. 5, 2011 10:52 a.m.

    @Shaun - yes, and if unicorns existed and we could find the end of the rainbow for the pot of gold...

    You realize we're $15 million dollars in debt right now, right? And, merely paying the debt on our national debt is a tremendous drain on our economy. Your suggestion sounds like a start-from-scratch idea, and a highly naive one at that. Since we can't start from scratch, your simple idea has no practical value whatsoever.

    Also, banks don't create money, the Federal Reserve does. Also, if you loan me $100, shouldn't I be doing something, such as creating and selling a product, that returns more than $110 to me, thereby allowing me to pay back the principle and interest? If I have no way to make more than the principle plus interest, why am I borrowing money from you, and why are you lending me money? If I'm borrowing $100 against next week's $200 paycheck, how am I having to borrow the interest? What in the world are you talking about?

    You might want to take an economics class. There are real-world reasons why simple solutions from uneducated people don't successfully drive an economy.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Nov. 5, 2011 9:53 a.m.

    @letsdebate. The solution is to have the government spend money into the economy debt free and interest free.

    Why does a sovereign nation like the United States ever need to borrow money? It can simply create the money it needs to facilitate commerce.

    What would happen if the United States didn't borrow money and didn't tax its citizens to build bridges or provide services? What if it simply created the money and spent it into the economy?

    Money is just an idea to facilitate trade. Why do bankers have the right to create money and charge interest on it? The bankers money system enriches themselves at the expense of everyone.

    A better system is for the government to spend money into the economy debt free and interest free. No taxes and more freedom it sounds simple to me.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Nov. 5, 2011 9:38 a.m.

    @LetsDebate. The solution is simple. Change our monetary system from a debt based system to a system where money is introduced into the economy debt free and interest free.

    Most people do not realize our money supply is debt. The loans people get for cars, homes, credit cards, etc is created out of thin air. Banks do not have money.

    Since our money supply is based on debt, new money in the form of loans constantly has to be created so the interest of older loans can be paid. For example if it was just you and me in the economy and I was the bank and you need a loan for a 100 dollars at ten percent interest then I can give you the loan. There is one problem where are you going to get the ten dollars for the interest? You will have to borrow it.

    The banks through the federal reserve act have built the best mouse trap in the world. We will always have to borrow money they created out of thin air for our economy to survive.

  • milojthatch Sandy, UT
    Nov. 5, 2011 9:35 a.m.

    I'm all for balancing the budget, but killing AMTRAK and gutting educational institutions like the Endowments for the Arts and the Corporation for Public broad casting isn't the way to do it.

    Why is it that many times, those in the GOP's answer to balance the budget is always to hurt things that help educate the masses? Why does it feel like they never do like wise to their own pet projects, like the military?

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    Nov. 5, 2011 8:34 a.m.

    Mitt will trim 100 million from foreign aid...oh be still my beating heart. Mitt is going to trim what equates to 3.5 days of foreign aid.

    Come on Mr. Romney get serious, the financial situation is serious.

  • Brian Wasilla, AK
    Nov. 5, 2011 8:18 a.m.

    Good grief Mitt, what are you thinking? How can you ever hope to change things if you start talking details now? Just pick a couple of words at random from my last sentence for your theme and don't give any details whatever you do.

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    Nov. 5, 2011 8:06 a.m.


    Maybe your responsibility should be to help your 91 year old father with his medical decisions and paperwork. Don't rush to a conclusion that no one would help the elderly, that is simply not true.

    Competition in the market would help a great deal. Right now people don't have to "shop around". In fact most people have no idea how much their doctor's visit, medical procedure or medicine costs. They just know they don't have to pay for it if they have insurance.

    Drugs are the same way. You think all pharmacies are the same. Not true. Try this yourself. Call several different pharmacies in your area and compare prices. You will be shocked to find the differnce. Walmart has 5 dollar perscriptions on a few drugs, but the rest of their drugs, especially antibiotics, are 5-10 times more expensive than say Costco. They get you in the door with the 5 dollar perscription. But most people don't know because they have insurance and never ask the cash price. Personal responsibility and "shopping around" would do a lot to decrease price. Not the only thing we should do, but it would help.

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    Nov. 5, 2011 8:02 a.m.

    l.cee | 12:18 a.m. Nov. 5, 2011

    your father would not be homeless if he lived with you.
    Isn't that the real issue with social security and medicare?
    children do not want to care for their own parents.
    They want society and the government to do so.
    And then they want to swoop in and collect their inheritance when the parent dies.
    many elderly people have significant assetts: house, saving, ect. that could be used to pay the medical cost.
    but instead of having to sale those things first before they receive public assistance: aka medicare. they get to keep the assetts. which are then passed on to the children.
    And before someone pipes in how they paid taxes and are entitled: the only group that is entitled to free medical care is veterans.
    no one has paid anywhere near enough into medicare to justify the huge amounts that are later spent on them.
    the elderly need to step up and pay a larger portion of the cost of their medical care.
    I am fine helping those who do not have money or assetts to pay for it.

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    Nov. 5, 2011 7:56 a.m.


    Please give your reference for "surgeons making more and more". That is is an untrue statement. It is the hospitals that are making more and more. The surgeons reimbursments are being cut. That is why there is becoming a "lack" of Doctors in this country. Why would you want to take out at least 250,000 dollars in student loans, go to school for 8-10 years after a bachelors degree, and run the risk of being sued at the drop of a hat, only to not be reimbursed enough to run your office. Remember MD's have overhead and office operating costs before they get to take home a paycheck.

    If you had to wait 10 days to see an orthopedic surgeon for your son's broken arm you simply didn't call around to see who was open. In our office we have PA's and MD's working together. The average wait to see someone with a broken arm is 1-3 days. I think your 10 days is a slight exageration or you just wanted to see who you wanted to see, and yes you would have to wait if you are that picky.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 5, 2011 12:43 a.m.

    Income earned by surgeons of all types are among the fastest growing salaries in the U.S.

    Japan, France, Australia, Canada and other countries have comparable cancer survival rates to the U. S. Sometimes survival rates differ not because of the healthcare delivery system, but because of different treatment approaches.
    People die in the U.S. due to lack of access to Drs and Dentists.
    People in the U.S. have to wait for treatment too. For example, my son had to wait 10 days before he could get into see an orthopedist for a broken arm.

    Amtrak is used by a lot of people traveling between New York, Philadelphia and D.C

  • l.cee Ridgefield, WA
    Nov. 5, 2011 12:18 a.m.

    If the voucher system was in effect today, I cannot picture my 91 year old dad figuring out how to use his voucher. And if his medical bills go higher than the voucher amount, then what? He is on a very limited income and would not be able to pay for medical bills. Does he end up homeless paying for those ever increasing medical costs?

    And just why do health costs keep rising and rising rapidly? Because the companies can do what they want. There are no measures to reign in those costs. The free market system doesn't hold costs down through competition.

    Does Romney's plan do anything to cut back the rising costs of health not just to the government coffers but to the people paying their share? That's what we need in our leaders--a way to help those paying the bills!

    Nov. 4, 2011 11:48 p.m.

    @Shaun - and yet, despite the simplicity of the solution, you've still left us in the dark.

    Let's start here - do you think the solution lies more with:

    1) Unleashing free market capitalism with lower taxes and less regulation, or
    2) Increased taxation, government spending and financial redistribution to stimulate spending and generate product demand.

    It's not as simple as each party blaming the other - each party has a sincerely held, mutually opposing philosophy about economics. There are many arguments to be made for either approach, as well as many criticisms. Neither is "fairly simple" when you get into considering the right balance of these two approaches, the details of implementation, and the known and unintended consequences of either economic philosophy.

    Anyone who claims the solution is simple really doesn't have a clue about his own level of ignorance.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 11:07 p.m.

    @Lets Debate. It was so nice of you to insinuate that I was dumb. Our nations financial problems can be fixed fairly simply. I was simply pointing out that both parties solution is to blame the other party and they are both in the pockets of the banks.

    As long as our nations money supply is controlled by banks and introduced by the banks we will always have financial issues as a nation.


  • Isthisforeal BLACKFOOT, ID
    Nov. 4, 2011 10:49 p.m.

    Don't worry about what Mitt wants to do. You have already been duped to the tunes out of billions by Obama, Pelosi, and Reed. Obama will have the legacy of the most corrupt president in history. Remember he promised to be open and transparent and most everything has been behind closed doors with his crony friends.

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    Nov. 4, 2011 8:54 p.m.


    A lot of doctors do take medicare, but they don't have to. I work for knee replacement surgeons and their reimbursment has been cut so much they are considering not taking medicare anymore. There are several of the best surgeons across the country doing this. If you want the best MD's to do your surgery, you pay cash and then get what reimbursment you can back from medicare. Not a bad idea. You can shop for the cheapest MD, or the best, depending on what your budget allows. Imagine that. A patient taking personal responsibility.
    By the way. Knee replacements are about $40,000. The MD makes about $1200 of that. Health care costs are too high! We have got to find a way to make a competative market in the health care field. Right now the only fields in health care that are decreasing in price are plastic surgery and lasix eye surgery. That is because they are cash for service and patients shop around. Imagine that. The free market at work!

  • owlmaster2 Kaysville, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 8:04 p.m.

    Hey, settle down. This is Mitt Romney talking here. He'll change his mind 3 or 4 more times before the GoP Convention. Flip flop... Don't get excited yet.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 7:55 p.m.

    A few years ago, I was paying Blue Cross $82 a month for Part D prescription Medicare. It was due to jump to $92 the next year. Then I heard of a plan endorsed by AARP with a monthly premium of ZERO. People at the meeting asked how this could be. The answer was shocking.

    We were told that the government already paid our monthly premium. We had paid for it all our lives and now it was returning to us. The fees we had been paying were "Administrative Fees." In English that means "Pure Profit."

    For other seniors out there, I strongly suggest you get online at AARP's website to learn about the Secure Horizons program from Select Care. Open enrollment ends December 7. You will be glad you did.

    I have been with them for four years and their service has been excellent. They say they still earn a good profit by making their operation very efficient. They also do not have a flock of stockholders or a CEO earning millions.

    I hope DN's censors will allow this to post.

  • floridian navarre, fl
    Nov. 4, 2011 7:40 p.m.

    About two years ago I was visiting Utah and had lunch with five other men; all of us Medicare aged. My host and I were the only ones who had not had some joint replaced to make life (read tennis, golf, and bowling) better. Between those four men who had surgery there were four knee replacements, two shoulder replacements, and two hip replacements. That is why Medicare costs are sky-rocketing out of control.

  • live4uid PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 7:39 p.m.

    " The USA needs someone who will break wind with their chest held high." oh my! That's hilarious!

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 5:04 p.m.

    I will vote for the guy who has the guts to give us our medicine, even if it tastes like crap! Mitt just won my vote today. I have had enough of the pandering, spineless, push-overs that bow down to every whoosh of political wind. The USA needs someone who will break wind with their chest held high.

  • Tom in CA Vallejo, CA
    Nov. 4, 2011 4:50 p.m.

    "but another 1-2 terms of financial slavery is not something I look forward to"

    Doug10: Then don't vote for Obama.

  • Tom in CA Vallejo, CA
    Nov. 4, 2011 4:28 p.m.

    Obama inherited a tough economic situation. Then he (Obama) proceeded to make it exponentially worse, and it will continue to get worse day by day until he is OUT. He ran in '08 on "hope & change". Now he is running on "I just need more time".

    What don't you bleeding heart liberals not understand about, "we have no more money"?? Do you run your own households by staying in denial, and writing checks that bounce?

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 4:12 p.m.

    The one thing we can not do is continue with the medicare program the way it is. There simply is not enough money to fund it, and more baby boomers are retiring each year.
    We can not buy everyone a "jazzy" who does not want to walk?
    Why should we take money from young workers to buy grandpa viagra?
    do we really have $1 million dollars to keep someone alive for one more month?
    Why should we ask society to pay for medical cost, if the patient has large and significant assets that could be sold?
    As more people come into the system, the system has to start spending less per person, or the program will not exist at all.

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 3:40 p.m.

    Mitt is a great candidate but he has math issues.

    By treating everyone fairly (excepting his old employees) he will friendlize everyone in the country. The party system will take a backseat as they find out what a great guy he is. Both parties will allow him to gut Obamacare even though it will add to the debt.

    He has left big money out of his budget balancing act. He can easily balance the budget on the backs of the seniors.

    The military that overspends and has for decades is void of Romneycuts. The cost over runs in the military are like the GM of old only on steroids. If there is a problem throw more money at it, listen to the big money folks who want more contracts and they want to increase the size of the military, sadly so does Mitt.

    Big contracts big money, balance the budget on the backs of the elderly.

    I would vote for Mitt in a minute if he would embrace the economics of Ron Paul, but another 1-2 terms of financial slavery is not something I look forward to.

    Nov. 4, 2011 3:26 p.m.

    @Shaun - "Our money problems is a simply fix..."

    I'm sorry to break the news to you, but our money problems are even more complicated than the English language, and based on your slaughter of that, I have great doubts that you have some "simply fix" that would correct our national financial crisis. As Buzzards said above, at least Romney is proposing something. I daresay not a single one of the Romney detractors here could graduate from Harvard with both an MBA and a Juris Doctorate, or make Bain Capital profitable, or turn a profit on an Olympics event, or govern the financial turnaround of any state of this union.

    But clearly, after having the Midas touch with everything he leads, all of a sudden he now can't think his way out of a coin purse. And, you all are so much better qualified, and have much more intelligent ideas than someone who could accomplish all that Romney has done.

  • JustGordon Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 3:15 p.m.

    Rock...there is a reason for that may procedures in a day...the more he performs, the more he can bill...just like a lawyer it all about maximizing billable hours or in this case billable procedures. It does not make the medicine better or worse, in fact I would not want to be at the patient at the end of his long day...I would volunteer to be first and on a Monday, thank you very much.

    By the way in terms of "proving your case" neither does one example...for all we know it could be isolated, it is undocumented or could be a cannot be refuted because it is part of no real study, not published, is an antidotal and maybe heresay...

    if medicare equals no care as you so brazenly assert why then are Ranch Hand's statistics about life expectancy lengthening under Medicare than under private insurance.

    Splain that one Lucy!

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 3:05 p.m.

    'Most doctors will not treat medicare patients. (Medicare = No Care)' - The Rock | 1:07 p.m. Nov. 4, 2011

    I work in an Organ Tranpslant center in Utah.

    I am required to go over the patient's insurance information.

    Over 90% of the records I am required to review are funded by medicare.

    I will now ask who the source is, for your information.

    I think it's ironic that Romney is now against Medicare....

    when he supported healthcare reform in MA.

    As for healthcare:
    Romney care support was up 10% to 63% in Massachusetts.
    -The Boston Globe by Kay Lazar - 06/05/11

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 2:48 p.m.

    Romney is not to bright. Our money problems is a simply fix but neither Democrats or Republicans want to do anything about it because they will lose their biggest donors. The Banks.

    Nov. 4, 2011 2:44 p.m.

    There is fraud in any insurance program that exists. People go to prison every day for scamming Aetna, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, etc. Privatizing medicare will not get rid of fraud. It will get rid of Medicare. Ask people who are currently on medicare why they don't just get rid of it and buy private insurance. They can't afford to. And if the government is going to pay private companies with vouchers, it will lead to even more fraud and corruption. This isn't a plan to reform medicare. It is a plan to destroy it. And if we can't afford to take care of our elderly, we certainly can't afford another $100 billion to upgrade our current nuclear arsenal.

  • Buzzards LEHI, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 2:34 p.m.

    Health care, especially for seniors, is on an unsustainable path. At least Romney is proposing SOMETHING. Because the two other options are Greece and/or Europe level taxation. The latter is a political non-starter, the first is scary beyond comprehension.
    I have this sneaky suspicion that if the dollars avaiable for health care suddenly became finite, insurance companies would actually find a way to make them go further. And yes, it would mean that maybe Grandma couldn't get her knees replaced on the government dime, but again, what are the alternatives?

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    Nov. 4, 2011 2:28 p.m.

    See ya in La Jolla, Mitt,
    I do believe you just lost a great deal of your constituency.

  • mightymite DRAPER, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 2:13 p.m.

    Stuff like this will cause romney the election. He is taking a needed social program and just creating a welfare state within the capital system. He is not a very consistent person and that will be his downfall.

  • bricha lehi, ut
    Nov. 4, 2011 1:51 p.m.

    There are a lot of comments bashing Romney's views on making medicare private. I don't know if I am totally hooked yet, but I must ask what would you people do to bring down the cost, and the fraud that goes on with medicare?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 1:44 p.m.

    @The Rock

    "Countries with socialized medicine (other western countries) have waiting lists that are months long. "

    I had to wait 2 months for an appointment to see a specialist for a condition that needed surgery in this nation.

    "If these politicians don't realize that vouchers are in effect a cut in health benefits, then they are dumber than I think they are which is almost not possible. They use vouchers, because they lack the courage to use the word CUT, which is what they really want and are really doing with vouchers. "

    The politicians realize it, that's why they use vouchers instead of the word cut. It's up to the people to pay attention, but even the tea party insists that polticians should "get their gov't hands off my medicare".

    I remember when Democrats picked up a seat in the house in New York that was so conservative it voted for Paladino despite Paladino losing by about 15-20 points statewide. Kathy Hochul (D) ran primarily on attacking the Paul Ryan medicare vouchers.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Nov. 4, 2011 1:44 p.m.

    Sixteen trillion dollar debt? Government control ain't cutting it!

    That's five hundred thousand dollars per second for a whole year. Thank you government, for high medical costs.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 1:37 p.m.

    As a Democrat, I love the idea of Romney getting behind this voucher thing on medicare. The idea is hated so much that a Democrat won a Republican district in New York that is so far to the right it actually voted for Paladino by running on medicare. The only sad thing is knowing that three weeks from now Romney will have a different position on the matter.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 4, 2011 1:19 p.m.


    Got to move his way over to the tea party or his candidacy is over. Nice try with the voucher idea of Ryan's. If these politicians don't realize that vouchers are in effect a cut in health benefits, then they are dumber than I think they are which is almost not possible. They use vouchers, because they lack the courage to use the word CUT, which is what they really want and are really doing with vouchers. I was also impressed to see the list of places he is going to cut, again right out of the tea party playbook. I was trying to find the cut in the taxpayer subsidies for the oil companies and I missed that. I am sure it is in the fine print of the plan though. After reading this it still amazes me that republicans can say they are for the middle class with a straight face, and what is even more amazing is that anyone believes it!

  • DR Hall Clearfield, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 1:09 p.m.

    These days are indeed the last days when even the "very elete are deceived". Freedom of Religion in this country was one of the core values of the immigrants when they came to this new land. One of the main core values of politicians for the last ten years has be to pretend to believe in some religion, but in fact do not follow any but put in attendance once in a blue moon. Lose what ever moral values you once were taught as they have NO place in current day life. Mitt Romney is wealthy so he does not need medicare nor does his family. His neighbors are definitely not his concern. So privatize every thing and outsource all jobs to China so all America is on the streets begging for everything and America goes to China and Russia and we all lose all. Congratulations Republicans, you are truely for communism in all aspects. This will not get printed as it is against DN good buddies.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    Nov. 4, 2011 1:07 p.m.

    @ RanchHand

    Figures don't lie but lyers sure do figure, as the saying goes...

    I have a friend who is a world renowned ophthalmologist (former head resident at the Mayo Clinic). He visited an eye clinic in London and discovered that they start work at 9:00 AM (my friend starts at 7:00 AM) the three surgeons performed a total of three procedures before lunch, came back and performed two more after lunch and were on the golf course by 3:00 PM. Three eye surgeons performed a total of five surgeries in one day. My friend performs between 32 and 35 surgeries each Tuesday by himself. There are two other surgeons on staff who also perform a similar number.

    The doctors in London are on salary and get paid the same regardless of how many surgeries the do.

    Countries with socialized medicine (other western countries) have waiting lists that are months long. In some countries you have to bribe the doctors to get in. You could die (and many do) waiting for chemo.

    Most doctors will not treat medicare patients. (Medicare = No Care)

    Sorry but the entire argument fails to hold water.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 12:56 p.m.

    If privatizing medicare was a viable option...

    why haven't we done it before...?

    *'Wellpoint Drops Coverage For Some Women With Breast Cancer' - By Mary Ellen Egan - Forbes Magazine - 04/23/10

    'Yesterday, an investigation by Reuters revealed that Wellpoint routinely drops coverage of women with breast cancer. According to the report, Wellpoint used a computer algorithm that automatically targeted...'

    Because we have example, after example that business, typically, do NOT answer to the people.

    The answer, to the board.

    Which is why, I support my goverment.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 4, 2011 12:31 p.m.

    So, Romney wants to throw medicare recipients into the shark tank (insurance market) with "vouchers".

    Statistics show that the life expectancy in the US is lower in all groups on Private Insurance, compared to other Western countries, UNTIL they reach an age to be eligible for Medicare, at which point, the life expectancy and health stats meet those of other countries.

    Summary: You have a lower life expectancy on Private Insurance than Medicare.

    Good job, Mitt. You're suggesting a means of reducing the Senior population. I'm completely surprised you haven't added Soylent Green into your plan as a means to reduce the cost of feeding those on Welfare and Food Stamps too.