Dems counting on People over 55 being Ignorant?

[daveman]

Pssst! YOU are not a 'thread'.

A lot of dumb people make that mistake.

WHY can't you answer the question? HOW is Ryan's plan better for senior citizens? Just give me ONE thing.

It offers them freedom to choose.

Why do you oppose that?

GREAT! Then Ryan has my full support.

I choose to keep the same Medicare my grandparents and parents generation had. And any retiree who chooses to buy private insurance has that freedom...

If you're over the cutoff, you're golden. If you're under, you have to make some choices for yourself.

I understand that frightens some people.

 

[bripat9643]

If anyone is guilty of 'looting', it's Ryan and the Republicans who want to take what grandparents and parents PAYED INTO their entire working life.

The Dims already looted it long ago. There is no money in the trust fund. Democrats spent every last dime of it.

 

[daveman]

GREAT! Then Ryan has my full support.

I choose to keep the same Medicare my grandparents and parents generation had. And any retiree who chooses to buy private insurance has that freedom...

So you think "freedom to choose" means the freedom to loot your children and grandchildren?

If anyone is guilty of 'looting', it's Ryan and the Republicans who want to take what grandparents and parents PAYED INTO their entire working life.

Ummm...that money was spent the year it was collected or the year after. There is no pile of money somewhere labeled "Bfgrn's Granddad".

 

[daveman]

Your source is a leftwing propaganda site. Look at the list of books the founder of the site has authored. It's a laundry list of leftwing causes.

Try posting something credible.

OK, as soon as America's Pravda (Faux news) starts telling the truth instead of lies, I'll get back to you.

ROFL! How does atacking FOX make your propaganda any more credible?

Remember what I said about emotion?

 

[Bfgrn]

SO...the 6% of all higher-priced loans that were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers caused the economy to crash? WOW!

That claim is just more leftwing propaganda.

The CRA Scam and its Defenders - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Daily

Gordon cites Fed bureaucrat Janet Yellen as the source of a "killer statistic" that absolves the government of all guilt: "Independent mortgage companies" which are not covered by the CRA made many more "high-priced loans" to borrowers with bad credit than did CRA-regulated banks, she says. Well, so what? Even if Yellen is correct, that does not mean that CRA-regulated loans have not caused tens of billions of dollars in defaults.

Moreover, Yellen and Gordon don't seem to understand what an "independent mortgage company" is. Many of these companies are like the one in which my next-door neighbor is employed: they are middlemen who arrange mortgage loans for borrowers — including "subprime" borrowers — with banks, including CRA-regulated banks. Some killer statistic.

By ignoring the role of the Fed in creating the whole housing-market mess, Gordon's pronouncement that it is entirely a result of "market failure" is laughable on its face. He also flatly denies that CRA lending has had anything to do with why so many uncreditworthy borrowers have defaulted now that the Fed-generated housing bubble has burst. This, too, is an untenable position.

When the CRA was created during the Carter administration, the administration also funded with tax dollars numerous "community groups" that have helped the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, and other federal regulatory agencies to enforce the act. Under the CRA, if a bank wants to make virtually any change in its business operations — merging, opening up a new branch, getting into a new line of business — it must first prove to regulators that it has made "enough" loans to the government's preferred borrowers. The (partially) tax-funded "community groups" like ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) can file petitions with regulators that stop the bank's activities in their tracks, perhaps defeating them altogether. The banks routinely buy off ACORN and other "community groups" by giving them millions of dollars as well as promising to make even more dubious loans.

In order to try to diversify the risk of these loans, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Company ("Freddie Mac") pioneered the "securitization" of bundles of these high-risk loans so that they could be sold on secondary markets. Such "securitization" exploded during the 1990s as a result of government regulation. As Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke himself stated in a March 30, 2007 speech entitled "The Community Reinvestment Act: Its Evolution and New Challenges" (published online by the Fed),

Securitization of affordable housing loans expanded, as did the secondary market for these loans, in part reflecting a 1992 law that required the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to devote a large percentage of their activities to meeting affordable housing goals. (p. 3)

In 1994 the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act loosened up the regulatory barriers to bank mergers. Consequently, said Bernanke, "As public scrutiny of bank merger and acquisition activity escalated, advocacy groups [like ACORN] increasingly used the public comment process to protest bank applications on CRA grounds." In other words, there was a burst of additional legalized extortion perpetrated by the Fed and its pet "activist organizations" beginning in the mid-1990s. As a result, says Bernanke, "banks began to devote more resources to their CRA programs." What an understatement.

Also in 1995, the US Treasury Department created the multibillion-dollar "Community Development Financial Institutions" fund to "provide banks with access [i.e., taxpayers' dollars] to new opportunities to finance community economic development" as "encouraged" by the CRA, said the Fed chairman.

The government also "streamlined" the regulatory requirements for CRA loans in 1995, allowing — and indeed pressuring — banks to make such loans without the benefit of many traditional credit-worthiness criteria, such as the size of the mortgage payment relative to income, savings history, and even income verification! Instead, the Fed told banks that participation in a credit-counseling program, many of which are federally funded, could be used as "proof" of a low-income applicant's ability to make his mortgage payments. In other words, federal bank regulators required banks to make bad loans based on nonexistent credit standards.

In his April 26 New York Post article on the CRA entitled "The Real Scandal," Professor Liebowitz explains how the government's Fannie Mae Foundation singled out one bank in particular as the role model for all other banks in America in terms of its commitment to CRA lending: Countrywide, the nation's largest mortgage lender, had committed to $600 billion in low-income or "subprime" loans as of 2003. Today, Countrywide is essentially bankrupted and has been merged with Bank of America.
How Capitalism Saved America

The myth that the CRA would not be harmful to bank-industry profits was hidden for years by the Fed-created housing bubble, which allowed for easy refinancing of all the bad debt. "[The] CRA increased lending and homeownership in poor communities without undermining banks' profitability," Robert Gordon proudly proclaims. But now that the bubble has burst, all those unqualified borrowers — whom the government calls "subprime," as though their credit ratings are only a tiny, tiny smidgen below "prime" borrowers with the very best credit ratings — are defaulting on their mortgages in droves.

Bank profitability has been extremely "undermined," to put it mildly. The bursting of the Fed-generated housing bubble is the reason why the CRA scam was not exposed until now, despite having been in operation for some thirty years.

The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home. It was not caused by dead beat poor people. It was caused by a bunch of wealthy, greedy slime balls. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a large segment of buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from their mortgages, leaving people who bought homes to live in with lower values on their house and neighborhood.

The honest folks who were preyed upon tried like hell to hang onto their homes, when they SHOULD have walked away. Because those loans were not designed to help people buy a home, they were designed to swindle them out of every penny of they had earned or saved.

It makes me sick what has been happening in this country. We are seeing more and more where unethical business practices have become 'lawful' through regulatory capture and corporate lawyers writing laws that only benefit their corporate interests and **** the people in the ass.

I addressed your ignorance already, here is some more proof...

Hand, meet head...LOL

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich
The Millionaire Foreclosure Club
Foreclosure double standard: Why the rich get away with defaulting
More Rich People Default On Mortgages
The rich bail faster on mortgages
Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich
Rich Borrowers More Likely to Default on Mortgage
Foreclosures & Walking Away: 60 Minutes Eyes an ‘Epidemic’
Speculation By Investors Largely Cause Of Foreclosure Crisis
How the Foreclosure Crisis Started: Investors, Speculators, Mortgage Fraud & Lax Lending Standards

 

[auditor0007]

Not only is the Left miss characterizing the Ryan plan as the End of Medicare, but they seem to be hoping to scare people who are over 55 right now into voting against it.

I guess they are betting that people over 55 are to stupid to understand that they will not be effected at all by the Ryan plan because they are Already over 55?

Can't believe the American People are falling for this BS from the left. I mean I don't think the Ryan plan is perfect, or the only way, But the Left seems to just want to ignore the Problem all together. To Actually say there is nothing wrong with Medicare as it is and nothing needs to be done. Which if People were smart, they would understand, is the Real Threat to Medicare. Doing Nothing.

The Democrats have quickly taken over the slot as the party of no. 2 Years and no Budget, and no willingness to even discuss entitlement reforms. They should change the Democrat party logo to an ostrich. the Party of "lets just keep our heads buried in the sand and spend out selves into ruin, **** the Grand kids!"

The best thing about the Ryan plan is that those of us under 55 get to pay into Medicare so that those over 55 get their full benefits, then when it is our turn, we get screwed. So not only do we have to continue paying into Medicare, but we also have to find a way to save an extra $150,000 or so just so that we will have coverage, and that doesn't even include deductibles, so we will probably need at least $200,000 per person. I imagine there are a great many people out there who will never save $200,000 before they retire. Proof of that is the simple fact that millions can't even save that for actual retirement yet alone healthcare.

Republicans really need to say what they mean when they say they support Ryan's plan. And that is that if you can't afford healthcare in your old age, too ******* bad, go without. At least then they would be honest about it instead of trying to sugar coat it and make people believe that they will be able to afford healthcare when they retire.

 

[Bfgrn]

So you think "freedom to choose" means the freedom to loot your children and grandchildren?

If anyone is guilty of 'looting', it's Ryan and the Republicans who want to take what grandparents and parents PAYED INTO their entire working life.

Ummm...that money was spent the year it was collected or the year after. There is no pile of money somewhere labeled "Bfgrn's Granddad".

You're right. I forgot Reagan looted Social Security.

Looting Social Security

By Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts - Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics.

 

[bripat9643]

The best thing about the Ryan plan is that those of us under 55 get to pay into Medicare so that those over 55 get their full benefits, then when it is our turn, we get screwed. So not only do we have to continue paying into Medicare, but we also have to find a way to save an extra $150,000 or so just so that we will have coverage, and that doesn't even include deductibles, so we will probably need at least $200,000 per person. I imagine there are a great many people out there who will never save $200,000 before they retire. Proof of that is the simple fact that millions can't even save that for actual retirement yet alone healthcare.

You're blaming the wrong person. The greedy geezers who voted for the politicians who created this boondoggle are the ones responsible. Medicare is bound to collapse. It can possibly pay on all the promises that Democrats have made. That means younger people are going to get screwed, no matter what is done about it.

Instead of blaming the people who setup this Ponzi scheme and defended it, you're blaming they guy who's bringing the bad news.

Republicans really need to say what they mean when they say they support Ryan's plan. And that is that if you can't afford healthcare in your old age, too ******* bad, go without. At least then they would be honest about it instead of trying to sugar coat it and make people believe that they will be able to afford healthcare when they retire.

Democrats are saying they don't care if country goes bankrupt so long as they get the greedy geezer vote.

 

[bripat9643]

You're right. I forgot Reagan looted Social Security.

The federal government has been looting SS since the day it was created.

 

[rightwinger]

Not only is the Left miss characterizing the Ryan plan as the End of Medicare, but they seem to be hoping to scare people who are over 55 right now into voting against it.

I guess they are betting that people over 55 are to stupid to understand that they will not be effected at all by the Ryan plan because they are Already over 55?

Can't believe the American People are falling for this BS from the left. I mean I don't think the Ryan plan is perfect, or the only way, But the Left seems to just want to ignore the Problem all together. To Actually say there is nothing wrong with Medicare as it is and nothing needs to be done. Which if People were smart, they would understand, is the Real Threat to Medicare. Doing Nothing.

The Democrats have quickly taken over the slot as the party of no. 2 Years and no Budget, and no willingness to even discuss entitlement reforms. They should change the Democrat party logo to an ostrich. the Party of "lets just keep our heads buried in the sand and spend out selves into ruin, **** the Grand kids!"

I think it was the Republicans counting on the people over 55 to be selfish

They thought they could buy them off with a "This does not apply to you" bill

But guess what? It is the over 55 crowd leading the charge against the Republicans killing Medicare. It is the people over 55 who realize how valuable our current Medicare really is. They are the ones who realize how quickly the voucher system would leave seniors high and dry. They are the ones protecting their children and grandchildren

 

[NYcarbineer]

Read the thread. The question's been answered.

Or continue looking like an idiot.

Pssst! YOU are not a 'thread'.

A lot of dumb people make that mistake.

WHY can't you answer the question? HOW is Ryan's plan better for senior citizens? Just give me ONE thing.

It offers them freedom to choose.

Why do you oppose that?

No it doesn't. It takes away the choice of single payer Medicare run by the government.

It forces seniors to buy insurance from a private company. I guess conservatives at least don't consider that unconstitutional anymore.

 

[beowolfe]

Not only is the Left miss characterizing the Ryan plan as the End of Medicare, but they seem to be hoping to scare people who are over 55 right now into voting against it.

I guess they are betting that people over 55 are to stupid to understand that they will not be effected at all by the Ryan plan because they are Already over 55?

Can't believe the American People are falling for this BS from the left. I mean I don't think the Ryan plan is perfect, or the only way, But the Left seems to just want to ignore the Problem all together. To Actually say there is nothing wrong with Medicare as it is and nothing needs to be done. Which if People were smart, they would understand, is the Real Threat to Medicare. Doing Nothing.

The Democrats have quickly taken over the slot as the party of no. 2 Years and no Budget, and no willingness to even discuss entitlement reforms. They should change the Democrat party logo to an ostrich. the Party of "lets just keep our heads buried in the sand and spend out selves into ruin, **** the Grand kids!"

It's not the left that mischaracterizing the Ryan plan, it's you. Medicare is a guaranteed insurance benefit, a voucher is not. I'm 54, and I can tell you that I don't want to see medicare turned into a voucher program. Actually, I want medicare (or something similar) to be the universal health insurance program with the government as the single payor. Having worked in the insurance industry before, I can honestly say, that a single payor system is a way to save a whole lot of money right away on health insurance.

As for people over 55 being ignorant, the GOP played them for ignorant to get control of the House in 2010. Remember? They told seniors that the Dems were cutting medicare when all they cut was the 'gifts' to the insurance industry put in place by Dubya. That money wasn't buying ANY healthcare for seniors. Seniors are actually wising up to the GOP this time around.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Dem contolled Congress gave Obama almost a trillion dollars in 2009 to create jobs. How is that working out for you?

BTW, the Republican majority was elected in November 2010 but didn't take office until January 20, 2011, about 4 months ago. I will bet they introduced a jobs bill last week.

Ryan's budget was a jobs bill. Anything that cuts taxes or cuts spending is a jobs bill.

The Obama stimulus cut taxes by 300 billion. How did that work out?

 

[daveman]

If anyone is guilty of 'looting', it's Ryan and the Republicans who want to take what grandparents and parents PAYED INTO their entire working life.

Ummm...that money was spent the year it was collected or the year after. There is no pile of money somewhere labeled "Bfgrn's Granddad".

You're right. I forgot Reagan looted Social Security.

Looting Social Security

By Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts - Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics.

There weren't big piles of money with people's names on them before then, either.

Please tell me you know this.

 

[daveman]

Pssst! YOU are not a 'thread'.

A lot of dumb people make that mistake.

WHY can't you answer the question? HOW is Ryan's plan better for senior citizens? Just give me ONE thing.

It offers them freedom to choose.

Why do you oppose that?

No it doesn't. It takes away the choice of single payer Medicare run by the government.

It forces seniors to buy insurance from a private company. I guess conservatives at least don't consider that unconstitutional anymore.

They can buy from any company they choose.

Only a liberal would say that having only one choice is freedom to choose.

 

[Bfgrn]

It offers them freedom to choose.

Why do you oppose that?

No it doesn't. It takes away the choice of single payer Medicare run by the government.

It forces seniors to buy insurance from a private company. I guess conservatives at least don't consider that unconstitutional anymore.

They can buy from any company they choose.

Only a liberal would say that having only one choice is freedom to choose.

There is nothing in the Social Security Act of 1965 that prevents any American from choosing to buy insurance from private for profit cartels. If that gives you a rod, then go for it slick.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It offers them freedom to choose.

Why do you oppose that?

No it doesn't. It takes away the choice of single payer Medicare run by the government.

It forces seniors to buy insurance from a private company. I guess conservatives at least don't consider that unconstitutional anymore.

They can buy from any company they choose.

Only a liberal would say that having only one choice is freedom to choose.

The choice was made by the People when Medicare was established. As law.

 

[auditor0007]

The best thing about the Ryan plan is that those of us under 55 get to pay into Medicare so that those over 55 get their full benefits, then when it is our turn, we get screwed. So not only do we have to continue paying into Medicare, but we also have to find a way to save an extra $150,000 or so just so that we will have coverage, and that doesn't even include deductibles, so we will probably need at least $200,000 per person. I imagine there are a great many people out there who will never save $200,000 before they retire. Proof of that is the simple fact that millions can't even save that for actual retirement yet alone healthcare.

You're blaming the wrong person. The greedy geezers who voted for the politicians who created this boondoggle are the ones responsible. Medicare is bound to collapse. It can possibly pay on all the promises that Democrats have made. That means younger people are going to get screwed, no matter what is done about it.

Instead of blaming the people who setup this Ponzi scheme and defended it, you're blaming they guy who's bringing the bad news.

Republicans really need to say what they mean when they say they support Ryan's plan. And that is that if you can't afford healthcare in your old age, too ******* bad, go without. At least then they would be honest about it instead of trying to sugar coat it and make people believe that they will be able to afford healthcare when they retire.

Democrats are saying they don't care if country goes bankrupt so long as they get the greedy geezer vote.

There is no reason that Medicare should ever collapse. The only reason it is headed in that direction is because people are living much longer than they used to. The answer is quite simple, raise the retirement age. Neither SS or Medicare were meant to pay out to retirees for 13 plus years. By raising the retirement age, it leaves people funding their own healthcare for a longer period of time, but at least it is at a time when most can afford to fund it on their own, either personally or as a benefit through their employer. This would leave people paying in for a few more years and collecting for a few less years.

Medicare was put in place because older people could not get insurance. We needed a fair way to make certain all of our aging citizens had access to reasonable healthcare. Doing away with Medicare as it now exists would only take us back 50 years. What we would find is that the government would still have to pick up the pieces in the end. One way or another, we will continue to have Medicare as a fully funded program, that or something very similar. The question is only how much are we willing to pay for it, and how do we curb some of the program's costs without changing the program completely.

 

[NYcarbineer]

SO...the 6% of all higher-priced loans that were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers caused the economy to crash? WOW!

That claim is just more leftwing propaganda.

The CRA Scam and its Defenders - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Daily

Gordon cites Fed bureaucrat Janet Yellen as the source of a "killer statistic" that absolves the government of all guilt: "Independent mortgage companies" which are not covered by the CRA made many more "high-priced loans" to borrowers with bad credit than did CRA-regulated banks, she says. Well, so what? Even if Yellen is correct, that does not mean that CRA-regulated loans have not caused tens of billions of dollars in defaults.

Moreover, Yellen and Gordon don't seem to understand what an "independent mortgage company" is. Many of these companies are like the one in which my next-door neighbor is employed: they are middlemen who arrange mortgage loans for borrowers — including "subprime" borrowers — with banks, including CRA-regulated banks. Some killer statistic.

By ignoring the role of the Fed in creating the whole housing-market mess, Gordon's pronouncement that it is entirely a result of "market failure" is laughable on its face. He also flatly denies that CRA lending has had anything to do with why so many uncreditworthy borrowers have defaulted now that the Fed-generated housing bubble has burst. This, too, is an untenable position.

When the CRA was created during the Carter administration, the administration also funded with tax dollars numerous "community groups" that have helped the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, and other federal regulatory agencies to enforce the act. Under the CRA, if a bank wants to make virtually any change in its business operations — merging, opening up a new branch, getting into a new line of business — it must first prove to regulators that it has made "enough" loans to the government's preferred borrowers. The (partially) tax-funded "community groups" like ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) can file petitions with regulators that stop the bank's activities in their tracks, perhaps defeating them altogether. The banks routinely buy off ACORN and other "community groups" by giving them millions of dollars as well as promising to make even more dubious loans.

In order to try to diversify the risk of these loans, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Company ("Freddie Mac") pioneered the "securitization" of bundles of these high-risk loans so that they could be sold on secondary markets. Such "securitization" exploded during the 1990s as a result of government regulation. As Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke himself stated in a March 30, 2007 speech entitled "The Community Reinvestment Act: Its Evolution and New Challenges" (published online by the Fed),

Securitization of affordable housing loans expanded, as did the secondary market for these loans, in part reflecting a 1992 law that required the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to devote a large percentage of their activities to meeting affordable housing goals. (p. 3)

In 1994 the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act loosened up the regulatory barriers to bank mergers. Consequently, said Bernanke, "As public scrutiny of bank merger and acquisition activity escalated, advocacy groups [like ACORN] increasingly used the public comment process to protest bank applications on CRA grounds." In other words, there was a burst of additional legalized extortion perpetrated by the Fed and its pet "activist organizations" beginning in the mid-1990s. As a result, says Bernanke, "banks began to devote more resources to their CRA programs." What an understatement.

Also in 1995, the US Treasury Department created the multibillion-dollar "Community Development Financial Institutions" fund to "provide banks with access [i.e., taxpayers' dollars] to new opportunities to finance community economic development" as "encouraged" by the CRA, said the Fed chairman.

The government also "streamlined" the regulatory requirements for CRA loans in 1995, allowing — and indeed pressuring — banks to make such loans without the benefit of many traditional credit-worthiness criteria, such as the size of the mortgage payment relative to income, savings history, and even income verification! Instead, the Fed told banks that participation in a credit-counseling program, many of which are federally funded, could be used as "proof" of a low-income applicant's ability to make his mortgage payments. In other words, federal bank regulators required banks to make bad loans based on nonexistent credit standards.

In his April 26 New York Post article on the CRA entitled "The Real Scandal," Professor Liebowitz explains how the government's Fannie Mae Foundation singled out one bank in particular as the role model for all other banks in America in terms of its commitment to CRA lending: Countrywide, the nation's largest mortgage lender, had committed to $600 billion in low-income or "subprime" loans as of 2003. Today, Countrywide is essentially bankrupted and has been merged with Bank of America.
How Capitalism Saved America

The myth that the CRA would not be harmful to bank-industry profits was hidden for years by the Fed-created housing bubble, which allowed for easy refinancing of all the bad debt. "[The] CRA increased lending and homeownership in poor communities without undermining banks' profitability," Robert Gordon proudly proclaims. But now that the bubble has burst, all those unqualified borrowers — whom the government calls "subprime," as though their credit ratings are only a tiny, tiny smidgen below "prime" borrowers with the very best credit ratings — are defaulting on their mortgages in droves.

Bank profitability has been extremely "undermined," to put it mildly. The bursting of the Fed-generated housing bubble is the reason why the CRA scam was not exposed until now, despite having been in operation for some thirty years.

Bwaaaa....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You just get done accusing of posting from a site with political bias, and then you turn around and post THAT???

 

[boedicca]

There is no reason that Medicare should ever collapse. The only reason it is headed in that direction is because people are living much longer than they used to. The answer is quite simple, raise the retirement age. Neither SS or Medicare were meant to pay out to retirees for 13 plus years. By raising the retirement age, it leaves people funding their own healthcare for a longer period of time, but at least it is at a time when most can afford to fund it on their own, either personally or as a benefit through their employer. This would leave people paying in for a few more years and collecting for a few less years.

Medicare was put in place because older people could not get insurance. We needed a fair way to make certain all of our aging citizens had access to reasonable healthcare. Doing away with Medicare as it now exists would only take us back 50 years. What we would find is that the government would still have to pick up the pieces in the end. One way or another, we will continue to have Medicare as a fully funded program, that or something very similar. The question is only how much are we willing to pay for it, and how do we curb some of the program's costs without changing the program completely.

There is every reason to assume that Medicare will collapse. From an analysis of the Trustees' Report:

The Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will run out of assets in 2024, five years earlier than projected last year. This is a very big story that hasn’t been covered much. One reason it’s so important is that one of the stated accomplishments of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was that it would push back the insolvency date of the program from 2017 to 2029. The HI trust fund, like the SS one, determines the spending authority of the programs. Without a positive balance in the HI trust fund, the program won’t have the authority to pay out all benefits, just what the program collects in taxes. (Medicare HI gets some income from premiums and from payments by states.)

This chart shows Medicare spending by revenue sources. The purple section at the top represents continued HI deficits, which remain unfunded under current law. These deficits will ultimately be reconciled either through benefit cuts or yet more general-fund spending.

What to Take Away from the Trustees Reports | Mercatus

This is what happens when consumers are shielded from price and the consequences of their behavior.