Unless Medicare is the only option it will put more pressure on the "trust fund." While I'm not in favor of any taxpayer funded anything (especially since I actually read the Constitution), the only way to keep Medicare viable is to make it virtually the only option available for those eligible.
To make Medicare optional for those under 65 will simply add sicker people to the program. If IFP is no longer available for 55-64 then everyone will opt in, both sick and healthy. And likely there are more healthy young people than those 65+.
And lastly, there is no such thing as government funded. The government has no money (expect for the funny money they print). It's all taxpayer funded, meaning 51% of us.
Rick
They already do provide Medicare to people under 65 who are permanently disable and collect disability income. I think the number currently in this population is 7 million under 65 that have Medicare.
----------
Hospitals / Providers cannot collect on a third of their charges is the way I understand it.
Or they're not collecting enough. So when the insurance piece is eliminated this has to have an effect on providers and hospitals, and level of care. I know just way too many people that didn't have the ability to pay their medical bills. Wouldn't losses be factored into medical rates the following year? I mean once upon a time years ago I worked for a short time in a hospital in Arizona and I sat in on a financial meeting and things like this were discussed
I just review the financial statements of all of our hospitals here in Arizona. The average patient net revenue is 23% collectable on gross patient charges. The profit is built into the allowable (fee schedule of the insurance contract). I am not sure if providers of care can write off in taxes the difference between the gross charges and the allowable net patient revenue which is what hospitals base that number on to cover expenses.