[rayiner]

Really, we have two separate problems that unfortunately get lumped together. First, is how to provide healthcare for the working age population and children. Nearly all the evidence points to public healthcare being better for this problem. Insurance discourages people from getting preventative care and ultimately costs more in the long run. Second, is how to provide healthcare for the boomer generation. I don't think there is a solution to this problem, that we can stomach, that doesn't ultimately involve working age people paying out the nose either in insurance premiums or taxes.

[3825]

>Second, is how to provide healthcare for the boomer generation.

There absolutely has to be a dollar cap on how much the government will spend on health care on an individual. Then, we must absolutely stick to it. If the limit is reached, then no more money for that person.

I'd support such a limit on baby boomers only since those idiots are the ones who got us into this mess but I can't think of a way to implement that without a big discrimination lawsuit.

[wheaties]

The boomers are not the ones who got us into this mess. It was actually their parents. They paid for their parents and then expected their children (us) to likewise pay for them. In that time, the average life expectancy and cost to prolong life grew enormously.

I do not have hate for the baby boomers. What I have hate for is solutions which foist upon OTHER generations costs and expenses associated with THIS generation.

I see that public care is perfect in a perfect world. We are not living in such a dream. Policiticians are elected today. Tomorrow they retire. As such there is very little long term planning because the incentive structure is not there to promote long term thinking. Hence, the ability to actually have a limit or cap would never last. Just look at copyright to see the types of things that could happen.

[3825]

They paid for their parents and then expected their children (us) to likewise pay for them.

The first generation essentially got something for nothing. That does not sound right to me. If we follow the logic that we've been following, those who didn't pay into the system should not be able to extract back from it.

Perhaps, we the current generation ought to bite the bullet and double tax so we can pay for our parents and ourselves so we don't saddle the next generation with (what some people call) a ticking time bomb.

It is sad that we don't have anyone in the government call out what seems to me the perfect solution: both decreased spending and increased taxes. I guess we just have ourselves to blame for electing people who tell us what we want to hear.