There is never an "only" way unless you narrow your focus too much.

That's true if every aspect of a system is open to change, which is not the case here.

Loosen the insurance regulations, reform the legal climate, incentivize new technology investment, and let the market go to work.

And lets not forget that "prevention is better than cure." Voila, senior healthcare funding solved! That was easy.

As to the Medicare line above...what part of broke isn't clear?

What part of "50% of healthcare expenditure occurs over age 65" isn't clear? The cost of that 50% is rising because the population is aging and expensive treatment options are multiplying. We know that healthcare will consume all of GDP if allowed, so Medicare always will be "broke" if it is allocated a budget and no rationing mechanism. What else do you expect, and why would you expect a different result if you hand the issue to insurers whose concept of "competition" involves avoiding exactly the sort of risk that seniors represent?

A cynic might observe that actually this whole kerfuffle is about rationing, a sort of reverse-Emperor's-Clothes that nobody wants to acknowledge even though it is the only reason that healthcare doesn't already consume the entire GDP.