Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

We cannot afford both, the elderly are too expensive current state. 1/4th of Medicare spending is someone's last year of life. So, life expectancy has ballooned spending on the elderly while not paying for child healthcare.

Medicare’s Real Fiscal Crisis Is Much Worse than Trust Fund Insolvency - https://www.cato.org/blog/medicares-real-fiscal-crisis-much-... - October 8th, 2025 ("Medicare isn’t just facing a trust fund shortfall—it’s threatening America’s entire fiscal future. While headlines warn that the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund2 will run out in 2033, the real danger comes from a different part of the program: Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI). SMI refers to Medicare spending by Part B (doctors’ visits and outpatient services) and Part D (prescription drugs). Unlike the HI fund, SMI is set up to take whatever it needs from taxpayers—no limits, no debate. In 2024 alone, Medicare Parts B and D financed under SMI added $498 billion straight onto the national credit card. Unless Congress makes fundamental reforms to Medicare, federal healthcare spending will drive the US toward a catastrophic fiscal crisis.")

Medicare Spending at the End of Life: A Snapshot of Beneficiaries Who Died in 2014 and the Cost of Their Care - https://www.kff.org/medicare/medicare-spending-at-the-end-of... - July 14th, 2016 ("Of the 2.6 million people who died in the U.S. in 2014, 2.1 million, or eight out of 10, were people on Medicare, making Medicare the largest insurer of medical care provided at the end of life. Spending on Medicare beneficiaries in their last year of life accounts for about 25% of total Medicare spending on beneficiaries age 65 or older. The fact that a disproportionate share of Medicare spending goes to beneficiaries at the end of life is not surprising given that many have serious illnesses or multiple chronic conditions and often use costly services, including inpatient hospitalizations, post-acute care, and hospice, in the year leading up to their death.")





We have been paying for the expensive part for decades and have no plans to stop, so your claim that we can't afford it is interesting.

Is there a reason you are so argumentative about basic, seemingly indisputable facts related to this topic?


Because you are not providing facts, just feelings. I am here to argue facts, not feelings. The citations in my comment you replied to literally describe why this spending is unsustainable and we cannot afford it and your response is "nah". Can't debate ignoring facts.

The facts are that we have been paying for Medicare since the 1960s and are legally obligated to continue paying for it indefinitely, as pointed out in one of your citations. That's literally all I said in my last post. In the previous post, I also said that children are inexpensive to insure, which is also empirically true.

The citations you provided are well researched, concerning, raise valid points, and include many facts, but your conclusions based on them are only very strongly held opinions.

This is now the third time you've jumped down my throat for no reason, so feel free to go harass someone else going forward. And the next time you wonder why you don't have much support for your preferred policies, look in the mirror, because I suspect I agree with you on most if not all of these matters but want nothing to do with a discussion with you about them.


Being obligated to pay for something does not mean that we will have the ability to pay for it forever. Socialized elderly care is one of the major reasons for why our national debt is spiraling.

You’re just arguing on emotion




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: