>>>My point about Viagra is that it is presently funded both in private insurance (regulated by the states) and through direct state plans, cutting spending like that does not result in death. Thus spending cuts are not equal to death.
>
>It's been said that 1% of the population consumes 30% of the healthcare spend and that 50% of Medicare spending is on people who die within 2 months. Viagra may be easy but it's not the elephant in the room if you want to reduce costs. And this particular elephant has plenty of votes as well as including many voters' grandmas. It's almost reached the point where it's politically easier to let it collapse so that politicians can ride to the rescue with a severely downsized scheme. Shame.

As long as you don't suggest it will "whither". ;)

>>>Not just whether we want to fund it but how. Piggybacking on your point in another thread about the Super, I'd like to have a 401k type of account for health expenses. A pre-tax, matched by employer, privately managed investment account which can be accessed for health care expenses. Presently we have a very limited "flex" account for minor expenses, but if we expanded it, people could modify their coverage through time depending on their savings. I could also envision insurance rates dropping based upon account balances effectively leveraging my account to coverage. Plus, the account would be private property which I could pass on to my family.
>
>LOL, your last sentence saved you from being labeled a Socialist. ;-)

That would've been a first. Although, re-reading what I wrote I don't see it.

>The key element is to preserve the fund from politicians and privateers. If its an insurance scheme then the premiums are not returned or inherited. Then the fund can grow and grow for mutual benefit. With its huge population and current capital starvation for many businesses, the US could enjoy bumper returns and a booming economy that is not delivered by the capital distribution in the status quo. Where is the victim?

A 401k type account would eliminate the politicians (unless they decide to get really brazen and sieze them (Teresa Ghilarducci I'm casting aspersions at you) and my own investing knowledge would insure no fund manager plays loose with fees. Insurance may then be purchased from the account but not tied to it. In addition, participation should be voluntary, just like health insurance was before 2009.

As an experiment for the Americans here.
Take what you've contributed over your lifetime to Medicare and health insurance. Imagine it in a 401k type account with the growth and compunding interest. Looks good, yes? Now add in your employers contributions and recompute.

I've done this a few times and even if I deducted a premium for an appropriate health insurance policy for my age and family as it changed through the years I come out with a HSA greater than my current 401k. Now that's a LOT of cash left on the table due to our present mess. I can't wait for the new mess to kick in. Oh wait, my out of pocket has gone up 50% since it's signing. I guess I don't have to wait.

Just to be clear, that last bit is not hyperbole. No smiley, and not funny.