# Medicare will soon be bankrupt. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 17, 2010, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398 "2010-02-17T21:43:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398/41 "2010-02-18T16:36:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem is not “a shortage of programs.” I know we try to tell our kindergarten students, “You can be anything you want to be!” But that’s not really the truth. If you lack a certain base mental acuity, for example, you can’t be a doctor. Okay, but it’s not as if everyone who isn’t admitted to medical school isn’t qualified to be a doctor. Some are _above_ the threshold, let’s say, but there are plenty of people who are qualified with respect to the standards, who are not admitted because there is just a limited number of spots. As for the quality of medical care provided, even if it is decreased–and I do not think it will be–the greater availability of medical personnel available to treat patients would more than offset this in terms of outcomes. ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398/42 "2010-02-18T18:49:01Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > I have been hearing about this for years. Those in the know would laugh about concerns regarding the Social Security Trust Fund’ solvency, knowing that Medicare issues would hit first. What to do? > > Here is my proposal for everyone to shoot down: > Combine the Social Security Trust Fund with the Medicare Fund. > Combine the two taxes into one line item. > Uncap that line item (i.e. you pay that flat percent regardless of income level). > > Now you just have one big issue, instead of two big issues. > > The REAL issue is that we are not longer growing our population at the same rate, while we are also living longer and having more expensive treatments. > > Population Growth - I personally oppose adding more bodies to the US. I have no desire to incent more immigration or natural population growth. Let it happen as it is currently happening. > > Living Longer - nothing to do about this either. > > Expensive Treatments. It is time to bring on the death panels and rationing. My 94 year old grandmother is in the hospital right now. She fell once again, and broke her hip. Medicare paid for a hip replacement. Medicare is now paying for her shut down kidneys and feeding tube after surgery on a 94 year old woman (with dementia). Medicare is pissing away money on her to the tune of thousands of dollars a day. A long, hard look at cases like this will be necessary - similar to how Oregon looked at their spending years ago and tried to eliminate certain procedures. This will suck, and the rich will buy the right to better care, but Medicare itself will need to start officially limiting certain procedures based on your current age and health. Feeding tubes and other measures can be taken out of the picture with advanced directives, AFAIK, but not everybody has arranged for this. And of course I don’t know all the details pertinent to this particular case. That said, the overall health must be considered, as you mentioned, and not just the age of the person in question. I wouldn’t want to see people cut off from care just because of chronological age. There are some folks I know in their 80s and even 90s who are still pretty good physically and mentally, while some folks half that age are in terrible shape and/or dying. ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398/43 "2010-02-18T18:57:21Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > I believe the AMA tries to artificially limit the supply of doctors to keep wages high and unemployment low. There is no shortage of people who want to be doctors (or nurses), just a shortage of programs for them to train. There is some support for your belief, but it is probably not a black and white issue - and it not fully the AMA. Over the past 30 years there have been predictions of physician surpluses and limits on medical school enrollment. This [link](http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm) says : _The marketplace doesn’t determine how many doctors the nation has, as it does for engineers, pilots and other professions. The number of doctors is a political decision, heavily influenced by doctors themselves_. As I understand it medical education must be accredited by the ACGME membership organizations (physicians and hospitals) and residency program funding is controlled by congress. Other interesting reading [here](http://wallstreetpit.com/5769-the-medical-cartel-why-are-md-salaries-so-high) and [here](http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/02/health-doctor-shortage-forbeslife-cx_rr_1202health.html). The good news is that the while the US only added 1 new medical school in the 1980’s, 5 in the 1990’s and 13 since 2000. Another 17 are under consideration. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398/44 "2010-02-18T19:51:56Z")
> [@vivalostwages](#): > > Feeding tubes and other measures can be taken out of the picture with advanced directives, AFAIK, but not everybody has arranged for this. And of course I don’t know all the details pertinent to this particular case. > > That said, the overall health must be considered, as you mentioned, and not just the age of the person in question. I wouldn’t want to see people cut off from care just because of chronological age. There are some folks I know in their 80s and even 90s who are still pretty good physically and mentally, while some folks half that age are in terrible shape and/or dying. Formulaic Opt-out Advanced Directives? Based on age, health etc… That way there’s a default ‘this is how you will be treated’ with the ability to change it if you want to. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398/45 "2010-02-18T20:08:24Z")
> [@An\_Arky](#): > > I hope it does go bankrupt; maybe then all those old farts will reconsider their position on UHC. Those old farts will be gone by 2017, it’s the not so old farts of now that are going to be screwed. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398/46 "2010-02-18T20:32:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This idea is laughable. > > I agree there’s no shortage of people who want to be doctors and nurses, just as there’s no shortage of people who want to be NBA or NFL starters. There is a great shortage, however, of people that have the requisite talent and skills to serve in that capacity. > > The problem is not “a shortage of programs.” I know we try to tell our kindergarten students, “You can be anything you want to be!” But that’s not really the truth. If you lack a certain base mental acuity, for example, you can’t be a doctor. Interesting. So you think medical schools are close to 100% accurate in accepting students? What about students rejected by school A and accepted by school B? If they hadn’t applied to school B, would they then not be qualified? What about students who do not even apply because they have heard of low acceptance rates? Do you think the same thing about law schools? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398/47 "2010-02-18T20:49:15Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > formulaic opt-out advanced directives? What you did there, I see it. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398/48 "2010-02-18T20:55:36Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > Formulaic Opt-out Advanced Directives? Based on age, health etc… That way there’s a default ‘this is how you will be treated’ with the ability to change it if you want to. Sure - but it means that you can only change it with your own money - Medicare won’t cover anything but the formula. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398/49 "2010-02-18T21:46:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This idea is laughable. > > I agree there’s no shortage of people who want to be doctors and nurses, just as there’s no shortage of people who want to be NBA or NFL starters. There is a great shortage, however, of people that have the requisite talent and skills to serve in that capacity. > > The problem is not “a shortage of programs.” I know we try to tell our kindergarten students, “You can be anything you want to be!” But that’s not really the truth. If you lack a certain base mental acuity, for example, you can’t be a doctor. > **[Top countries for Practicing Physicians Density](https://www.nationmaster.com/nmx/ranking/practicing-physicians-density)** > > In 2014, Practicing Physicians Density in San Marino increased 21.1% compared to the previous year. The US has a low number of physicians per capita, 2.3 per 1,000 people. France has 3.37 Germany 3.4 Israel 3.82 Canada & the UK have about 2.1 & 2.2 These are all wealthy, developed OECD nations by the number of doctors is 60% higher per capita in Israel & Germany than Canada & the UK. I don’t buy the idea that a UK or Canadian (or US doctor) is better than a French or German due to the fact that there are fewer than them. There are tons of intelligent, hard working people who get rejected from medical schools all the time. And there are people who get in who have good academic/technical skills, but bad interpersonal skills (which are extremely important in medicine). Adding an extra doctor per 1,000 people isn’t going to decrease quality any. It hasn’t in France or Germany. It is a shortage of programs (med schools and residency programs), not a shortage of talent. We have as much talent as France, Germany or Israel. We just don’t have as many openings. > **[StockExaminer - AI-Powered Stock Chatbot](https://examiner.com)** > > Discover Stock Examiner, the AI-powered chatbot delivering instant, interactive stock charts, real-time financials, breaking news, stock screeners, and more—all in one seamless experience. I guess it is more that we don’t have enough residency programs. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398/50 "2010-02-18T21:58:26Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > We have as much talent as France, Germany or Israel. We just don’t have as many openings. But some specialist docs earn enough to buy small islands, and that makes it all worthwhile. :rolleyes: As someone who was recently accepted to med school, I certainly hope that the number of spots is increased for future applicants, and a system is created where everyone is able to obtain medical care without going bankrupt. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398/51 "2010-02-18T22:03:47Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > This is the only realistic long-term solution. It won’t happen. > > Look at the brouhaha a few years ago when insurance companies watned to release women from the hospital after 24 hours instead of 48. Statistically, there was no benefit from the extended stay - healthy women and healthy babies did just as well overall when they went home after 24 hours as otherwise. But there was actually legislation proposed forcing companies to reimburse for the full 48 hours. > > It’s not like we don’t know how to fix Medicare. The [Sustainable Growth proposal](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704500604574483531025733584.html) is thirteen years old. Congress has never made the cuts it called for. > > But they will under Obamacare. Suuuuuure they will. > > Regards, > Shodan I don’t know tons about the Sustainable Growth Rate, but it sounds like the ‘starving the beast’ concept among the GOP. If you keep cutting medicare reimbursement rates, doctors won’t take medicare patients. And soon only bad doctors or no doctors will be left. Then you can eliminate medicare by pointing to how few or how bad the doctors left are because all the other doctors will have abandoned the program. Thomas Frank claims conservatives have been doing this for a while. If you cut wages and benefits for those who work under public systems, then you can eliminate people who will take those jobs, or get people who are lower quality to take those jobs. Then you can point at those ineffective programs with lower quality workers and say ‘see, government doesn’t work. Lets eliminate XYZ’. Its like FEMA under Bush. Put incompetent people in charge, then use their incompetence as an excuse to bash government intervention and laud the private sector. Except it is intentional. Only 1 republican voted to replace the SGR program in 2009 in the house. > **[OSN SuperSite — What You Should Know Before Playing at Online Casinos ...](https://www.osnsupersite.com/)** > > OSN SuperSite: Discover the best online casino sites in 2025 with no deposit bonuses, free spins, real money slots, live dealer games, and expert strategies. Play safely at top-rated gambling sites. So I don’t believe that the program is designed to keep medicare solvent, it sounds more like a tool used by conservatives to destroy entitlement programs. Peter Orszag claims about $800 billion in medical spending goes to interventions that do not make people healthier. Targeting those (which would probably include targeting tort reform designed to block defensive medicine) would probably be better to keep costs down. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/10/05/AViewfromtheInstituteofMedicine/](http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/10/05/AViewfromtheInstituteofMedicine/) > [@](#): > > The need for health insurance reform just became clearer with the release from the non-partisan Institute of Medicine (IOM) of an estimate that the health care system contains over $800 billion in excess costs, a number consistent with previous studies. In other words, according to this new estimate, we spend more than $800 billion a year on health care that does not make us healthier. The result is higher premiums for us all and higher costs for the government — but it also means you may receive tests and procedures that you do not need, putting your health at risk. > > According to the study, excess costs arise from a variety of sources. Excessively high administrative costs for insurers, physician and hospitals come to about $200 billion. Unnecessary services, such as using more expensive brand name drugs when generics are just as good and overusing tests and treatments compared to professional guidelines, account for another $200 billion or so. Errors and avoidable complications add $75 billion, and fraud adds another $75 billion. Preventive measures — both in terms of keeping healthy people healthy and keeping people with chronic illness such as diabetes out of the hospital — tack on another $55 billion. And the list goes on. > > The big question is how can we get reduce these costs? The IOM identifies different levers to push change, including: uniform administrative requirements for paperwork; reform of payment incentives so that they are more oriented toward results and quality; increased reliance on evidence-based quality practices; the development of more independent evidence of what works and what does not work; electronic clinical records that can be shared and are privacy protected; and providing incentives for more consistent and widespread prevention interventions. As one goes down the list, almost all these changes have been endorsed by the Administration and most are included in the reform bills making their way through Congress, including the legislation currently being considered by the Finance Committee. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2010, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398/52 "2010-02-19T01:21:05Z")
The shortage of doctors is not due to a shortage of qualified applicants (although that’s an issue which concerns me – there are already some crappy doctors out there), nor is it primarily due to a shortage of medical school slots. The Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), THE accrediting body for US medical schools, is overseeing a 30% expansion in med school capacity. They’re a lot more worried about a shortage of slots in residency programs. In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, the president of the Association of American Medical Colleges blamed Congress for putting a “cap” or “freeze” on funding for residencies. The AAMC and the AMA pretty much run the LCME, so they deal directly with the conflict between the financial interests of doctors, and the policy interests we’ve discussed, but right now everyone agrees there’s a shortage, and that it’s going to get worse. In other news: there’s no point in comparing Medicare to Social Security; there is no SSI-style cap on the Medicare tax. To fund Medicare from income tax, the rate would have to increase to account for exemptions and deductions. I have no problem with that, but there’s no inherent funding benefit from it like there would be for SSI. Similarly, SS spending would go down a lot if no one with an adequate retirement plan drew benefits; I don’t think Medicare would experience similar savings, as private medical insurance is, well, not at all like an IRA. I really think we need to suck it up and raise taxes; even George Will has said that Americans are undertaxed, compared to the level of services they (we) receive. Perhaps people would finally decide one way or the other. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2010, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398/53 "2010-02-19T15:08:27Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > I don’t know tons about the Sustainable Growth Rate, but it sounds like the ‘starving the beast’ concept among the GOP. > > If you keep cutting medicare reimbursement rates, doctors won’t take medicare patients. My point is that they haven’t made the cuts at all. > [@](#): > > And soon only bad doctors or no doctors will be left. Then you can eliminate medicare by pointing to how few or how bad the doctors left are because all the other doctors will have abandoned the program. > Peter Orszag claims about $800 billion in medical spending goes to interventions that do not make people healthier. Targeting those (which would probably include targeting tort reform designed to block defensive medicine) would probably be better to keep costs d[o](http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=K01)wn. > > [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/10/05/AViewfromtheInstituteofMedicine/](http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/10/05/AViewfromtheInstituteofMedicine/) What I keep asking is, if there is $800 billion in cuts that could be made without affecting the health of Medicare patients, why haven’t they been made for the last seven years? Politicians _always_ talk about “waste, fraud, and corruption” and how eliminating it will magically make money appear. (Remember the $200 Pentagon hammers?) The trouble is, whoever is now benefiting from the waste is going to scream bloody murder, and will hire a bunch of highly educated folks who will make a very plausible case that “grandma will be kicked out to die in the street because no doctor will treat her at a loss if we cut Medicare”. For instance - > [@](#): > > Preventive measures — both in terms of keeping healthy people healthy and keeping people with chronic illness such as diabetes out of the hospital — tack on another $55 billion. And the list goes on. Notice what they are saying - preventative measures add to health care costs. Now suppose we want to cut $55 billion so as to save money. Can you imagine the screaming? “You want to force diabetics into the hospital! You MONSTER! You are trying to starve the beast and ruin entitlement programs!” Etc., etc. Yes, tort reform could help, in the sense even of reducing costs rather than merely slowing their growth. Given the amount of [contributions that trial lawyers give to Congress](http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=K01) - good luck with that. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2010, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398/54 "2010-02-19T17:29:59Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The trouble is, whoever is now benefiting from the waste is going to scream bloody murder, and will hire a bunch of highly educated folks who will make a very plausible case that “grandma will be kicked out to die in the street because no doctor will treat her at a loss if we cut Medicare”. …or they’ll get some uneducated people to scream about “death panels.” > [@](#): > > Yes, tort reform could help, in the sense even of reducing costs rather than merely slowing their growth. Given the amount of [contributions that trial lawyers give to Congress](http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=K01) - good luck with that. Given that medical lawsuits account for only 0.46% of total healthcare spending–good luck with getting any substantial savings from that. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2010, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398/55 "2010-02-19T18:17:01Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > Given that medical lawsuits account for only 0.46% of total healthcare spending–good luck with getting any substantial savings from that. Tort reform includes things like reductions in defensive medicine and malpractice insurance, not just lawsuits. [Cite - PDF.](http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf) Although you are correct, it is not a panacea. On the other hand, it does not involve cuts in reimbursements or tax increases, and it decreases one of the upward pressures on costs. It makes for fewer [John Edwards](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards) types, but I consider that a benefit. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398/56 "2010-02-19T21:01:29Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Tort reform includes things like reductions in defensive medicine and malpractice insurance, not just lawsuits. [Cite - PDF.](http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf) Although you are correct, it is not a panacea. On the other hand, it does not involve cuts in reimbursements or tax increases, and it decreases one of the upward pressures on costs. “Health Spending In The United States And The Rest Of The Industrialized World” Anderson et al. Health Affairs, 24, no. 4 (2005): 903-914 > [@](#): > > **Are claim payments higher in the United States?** Surprisingly, U.S. malpractice payments (including both cases that resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff and cases resulting in a settlement) were lower, on average, than those in Canada and the United Kingdom. In 2001 the average payment in the United States was $265,103, which was higher than in Australia but 14 percent below Canada and 36 percent below the United Kingdom.22 While U.S. media and public attention have focused on multimillion-dollar awards at the upper end of the range, the average was actually smaller than in Canada and the United Kingdom in 2001. > … > \*\*Possibly the most important and best summary measure of the magnitude of malpractice awards is total payments divided by total population. \*\*On this measure, the United States is only slightly higher than the other three countries: $16 per capita in 2001, compared with $12 in the United Kingdom, $10 in Australia, and $4 in Canada. In all four countries, however, malpractice payments represent less than 0.5 percent of health spending. > > These figures do not include the legal costs of defending malpractice claims. Legal costs are estimated to average $27,000 per claim in the United States, which adds approximately $1.4 billion in costs to the $4.4 billion paid in settlements and judgments.23 The costs of underwriting insurance against malpractice claims are estimated at an additional 12 percent, or $700 million.24 **The cost of defending U.S. malpractice claims, including awards, legal costs, and underwriting costs, was an estimated $6.5 billion in 2001—0.46 percent of total health spending.** > … > The total cost including awards, legal costs, and underwriting costs was $237 million (PPP) in 2001—0.27 percent of total Canadian health spending. > … > Defensive medicine—tests or procedures ordered by physicians to protect against the risk of being sued—could contribute more to health spending than malpractice payments do. Several attempts have been made to quantify the amount spent on defensive medicine, but estimates vary widely. The difficulty lies in determining what services are purely “defensive”—that is, both inappropriate overuse and motivated by fear of litigation. For example, a physician might ask for a second opinion on a difficult diagnosis, mindful of the potential of litigation, but that second opinion could be considered appropriate care. Other services could be considered inappropriate overuse but were motivated by incentives other than the litigation threat, such as payment policy. These gray areas make precise estimates of the cost of defensive medicine extremely difficult. > > One estimate of this cost has come from HHS, which estimates that $70–126 billion (5–9 percent) in health spending per year would be saved if malpractice tort reform, similar to policies in California, were passed at the national level. The 0.46% includes malpractice claims. As for the costs of defensive medicine, they are somewhat more difficult to gauge. Presumably, more and higher lawsuit settlements would prompt more tests, but they are not the only factor in this. Doctors also order additional tests just for the reimbursement, as well as for a defense against complaints that do not involve monetary compensation (e.g., board sanctions). I’m all for rendering this question moot by establishing single payer healthcare. If doctors are federal employees, they can’t be sued. At the same time, patients don’t have to worry about the financial burdens inflicted on them by incompetent doctors, since their health bills would be covered (though they would still have the health effects). But I would not support “tort reform” without a guarantee of the provision of healthcare for everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Perciful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b38774/32.png) [@Perciful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Perciful)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2010, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398/57 "2010-02-19T21:38:42Z")
Medicare could be partailly saved by eleimating Medicare Fraud. They have a device that scans your finger to show you signed for those services. This would be a huge help because now all they need is your Medicare card to bill for services. This was real eye opener [cbsnews.com/storiesl](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/23/60minutes/main5414390.shtml?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel) ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2010, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398/58 "2010-02-19T21:43:59Z")
> [@Perciful](#): > > Medicare could be partailly saved by eleimating Medicare Fraud. They have a device that scans your finger to show you signed for those services. This would be a huge help because now all they need is your Medicare card to bill for services. > > This was real eye opener > [cbsnews.com/storiesl](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/23/60minutes/main5414390.shtml?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel) And how much would the implementation of the scanning devices, biometric technology, and data storage cost? ---
**Author:** ![Perciful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b38774/32.png) [@Perciful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Perciful)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2010, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398/59 "2010-02-19T23:19:24Z")
> [@sleeping](#): > > And how much would the implementation of the scanning devices, biometric technology, and data storage cost? It would not cost 60 Billion. It would pay for ityself. I’ll see what I can find out how much they cost. The government has saved Billions converting from paper food stamps which were sold for cash, to government atm cards for food. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2010, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398/60 "2010-02-20T07:52:10Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > We also need to increase the overall supply of doctors. Congress should allocate some very generous financial aid for people going to medical school. If we flood the market with doctors, simple supply and demand will dictate that prices will go down. It would be worth the investment in the long run. This is what I think is the most important thing. Doctors who don’t take Medicare do this because they can be paid more–that is, charge more–in the private market. Competition will act as a counter to that. Funny how people complain about Medicare being so expensive, but are horrified at the idea of paying doctors less. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/medicare-will-soon-be-bankrupt/529398.md?page=4)