>>>Are you suggesting that back in the late1960's when Medicare was enacted someone should have said;
>>>"Well, Al, it now costs about $250/day to stay in the hospital, just about half your week's pay.
>>>But, you see Al, in 2016, it will cost over $7K/day, or 14k weeks pay in current dollars, so in order to cover that, I'll take most of your current pay as a premium."
>
>If you're asking whether insurers should underwrite competently, the answer is YES. Especially when "insuring" against eventual certainties like sickness and death. Insurers are supposed to put aside enough funds to cover predictable costs, and insurers invest extremely competently so that the value of their investments rises more quickly than inflation, including medical inflation. For insurers there's nothing new about this situation.
>
>The problem with Medicare was that for decades, whenever a politician pointed out that premiums (tax contribution) to Medicare needs to be increased, taxpayers quoted the usual chestnuts about people being better than governments at investing their own $ and they voted accordingly.
>
>It's undeniable that Medicare has run as a Pay-as-you-go scheme with no underwritten investment and therefore is a world class Ponzi scheme.
>
>The problem with other health insurance prior to age 65 is that competent underwriting is less vital, because responsibility transfers to the taxpayer at the age of 65 which is when the big costs cut in.
>
>This Ponzi arrangement is foist on the young and it will be up to them to undo the foolishness or more selfishly, to cut the Ponzi schemers loose to reap what they sowed.
>
>As for costs: your other problem is that there's a perverse incentive for insurers to tolerate increased costs because ACA has capped their margin at 20%. If costs double, premiums can follow suit and % profit follows suit.
>
>Who should have controlled costs? Elsewhere in the world, citizen physicians cheerfully act as gatekeepers because waste is unethical. But don't worry, the US tendency to attack physicians for not ordering every test under the sun or not performing heroic surgery on 96-year-old Aunt Alzheimer, is catching on elsewhere so you can be sure that the pain will spread.
>
>Once physicians are dis-empowered, the only remaining entity with motive and capability of controlling costs rather than excising muscle and bone, is government. The same people who prevented government underwriting Medicare properly will vote against any government measure that might be interpreted as a "death panel" to prevent Aunt Alzheimer getting her liver transplant.
>
>Who to blame? I'll give you a clue: try as you might, I am only the messenger, I played no part in this colossal Ponzi arrangement!


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/anticipated-steps-monsanto-bayer-merger-190633181.html

Let's look at this for a minute.
Here is a company that is part of the health care system and is anxious to pay $62 billion for a company that makes seeds.
So much for all the claptrap about how big pharma profits are recycled for research on miracle drugs, blah, blah, blah.

Back to the "Ponzi scheme" and who is to blame.

You started this by comparing tyrannous seniors to King George's parliament's taxing of young colonists.

I've seen victims blamed before, but that one is eligible for some kind of prize, John.

If there anything certain here, the blame can't be laid on the poor schlubs who are being victimized by insurers, big-pharma-schilling shamans, hospital executives drawing million-dollar salaries who wouldn't know a pill from a golf ball, big Pharma merger-maniacs and politicians who are milking this system.

In my judgement,it starts with the prescriber. If that MD is honest, the insurers, pill-peddlers, etc can't get started.
They clearly have.