HMO's were created to solve funding problems within Medicare and Medicade. The very reason Congress created the HMO Act, was because they wanted to arrange for someone to have the power to control costs, by inserting some mechanism between the doctor and an the government.

No, they do not cover the same population and are only peripherally related, but that is beside the point.

On that basis, your barb, while cute, makes no sense at all.

I disagree but will alter the quote to accommodate.
As opposed to private insurance where your health is the primary consideration?

Medicare is a ponzi scheme exactly like Social Security. Products of the Democrat Socialist Party.

While drivel like this may draw raves here, good luck advancing such an argument to the general population of this country...indeed, if the GOP wants to continue its minority status, it should use messages like this one...

LBJ never said that in 2009 young families would be paying Medicare tax on every dollar earned so multi-millionaires over 65 would have free health care.

Medicare is a ponzi scheme exactly like Social Security. Products of the Democrat Socialist Party.

You may not know this, Grew, but HMO's were essentially mandated in 1973, by Congress. HMO's were created to solve funding problems within Medicare and Medicade. The very reason Congress created the HMO Act, was because they wanted to arrange for someone to have the power to control costs, by inserting some mechanism between the doctor and an the government. Neat... Government didn't have to take the hit for telling Granny she can't get her hip replacement. It's all the fault of supposedly private enterprise. Again, HMO's were created by Congress. Purpose: to curtail access to medical services.

In both cases, the issue is the direct involvement of government. On that basis, your barb, while cute, makes no sense at all.

Face it, folks, regardless how it gets presented, when government is running healthcare, your health is not the primary consideration.

As opposed to HMO care where your health is the primary consideration?

That decision will eventually be made for us since we are on a path that is not sustainable. Something is going to give. Now we can act pre-emptively and try to make changes with as little pain as possible or we can let things run their natural course which will likely be much more painful.

But do we assume that government is the answer, here? If so, nothing has really changed, and we're still headed for collapse. Face it, folks, regardless how it gets presented, when government is running healthcare, your health is not the primary consideration. What IS the primary consideration is how much you affect the government, and more particularly the individuals running the government and how much social money goes where.

Isn't it time to consider answers other than government?

Part of the huge cost problem with Medicare and its twin, Medicaid, is the incredible amount of fraud.

Oh, and reducing fraud will almost surely push up those precious administartive costs that so many on the Left go on and on about.

Can any other conclusion be drawn from those paragraghs than: The access of the elderly to medical care--at least government-sponsored medical care--must be curtailed? And severely, if costs are to be contained. But then we come back up against Dave's point:

Sam got it. Really, why is this so shocking? It stands to reason that to reduce health care costs we are almost surely going to have to do with less health care, not more. The idea we can have more health care and cheaper is the old "we'll lose on every sale, but make it up on volume." This is what they are doing in the U.K. and it isn't the evil market that is doing it, but the government.

But then the real question becomes: What is the quantum of suffering of our parents and grandparents can we as a society tolerate? Will we as a society tolerate? You can make all the hard-boiled economic arguments you want, but that moral issue will subtend any discussion of curtailment.

That decision will eventually be made for us since we are on a path that is not sustainable. Something is going to give. Now we can act pre-emptively and try to make changes with as little pain as possible or we can let things run their natural course which will likely be much more painful.

But nursing home care is not a technologically new development, and as I understand it has been a significant contributor to increased costs, now subsidized by government programs and formerly by the family.

Neither the $60/hr nor the $50MM/yr bother me. It is none of my business. It is for the owners of the relevant businesses to decide and, importantly, to live with the consequences of their decisions, good or bad.

We seem to have lost that discipline in the US.