Below is a 'long'  ramble,  I started about 1+ hours ago, then tried to cut
down.  Some of the context might be mixed up or 'numbers'  lost accuracy
from my First Draft ramble, because of that cutting out of text to try make
this a little briefer !!  :-<
  If you want to comment or offer ideas on 'how we can pay for newer
improvements to healthcare for an Aging bunch of Baby Boomers, or help pay
for medications etc. within a larger population of Olde People,  cut out
whatever you don't need, when you reply.    Thanks.   G2R2. //

 I was going to append this onto thread above about 'Medical Bills'  re the
U.S. predicament about whether to help 'aging population'  of Baby Boomers
with Medication expenses (as more newer and expensive cures become
available),  *or kicking the (U.S.) National debt up above Half? a Trillion
Dollars for 300 Million people...  (If those numbers are right (I didn't
look them up),  that's a net debt per person of about 150,000 Dollars for
each person -- man, woman or child.  Does that make sense?  to still use a
model of 'deficit financing'  that was being discredited when I was taking
Economics 301 in 1965?  The idea at that time was that the Dollars paid back
are worth Less than the Borrowed Dollars because of Deflation of value of
the money.  Trouble was, it's Still 150,000 Dollars per person, whether it's
Deflated or not,  it's Still an unattainable amount when no steps are
started to pay it off. )
  Not being an American (except geographically),  I don't understand why
the 'population'  haven't been on their politician's 'case' about making
**more benefits available as *more and more of the 'median age'  moves
upward,  as us Baby Boomers start to retire.

  If the 'general tax rates'  for 'richer people ' (many of whom recently
appear to be due for Prison) were knocked up by 5-10%, the return to the Tax
Coffers from Their Incomes would be far larger than a 10% increase on e.g.
someone making less than $30,000 per year.   Since there are more Voters in
the latter income range, why aren't the laws of Income Balance more in
keeping with those who 'don't need that much money for food and clothes'  to
Transfer it (through the Tax System)  to people in the Bottom 20% of the
Income range?
   Doesn't it seem 'unfair'  (as described a few days ago in Dave's writeup
on Social Security etc.)  that someone with a Health or Age Need, should
have to run their Life Savings into the Ground (to Zero) before the
Government they've supported for 40, 50?  years looks around and says --  
"Oh, You.....  well I suppose You want some food, and pills.    Maybe we
could help.    Belch.....  "  (I get this picture of Jabba the Hut from Star
Wars 2? movie.   Did you ever wonder how much the 'Top 5%'   pay  for *their
pills? )
 You've got some of the Largest Corporations in the world, paying some of
the Lowest Proportional Taxes and deducting the price of Limos for the Board
/Chief Executives from their Gross Incomes, before their Corporation pays
into the 'kitty'.   How is that fair?
 I don't recall who said it but they said  'a country can be judged by how
it treats its sick, weaker or underpriviledged members'.   It matters little
that the latest Plane can 'hit a target' 300 miles away within 4 inches but
costs 20 Billion Dollars,  while people aren't able to care for themselves
or get a decent level of Medical Care if they drop by the wayside through no
fault of their own.

  One solution for the Health costs, might involve a 10-15% 'surtax'  on
Income Taxes above a basic Floor of e.g. $20,000  that would go into a
Health Provider Fund.  So if someone made $30,000 a year and the Taxes due
between 20 and 30K was e.g. $1500?  their Surtax would be $225. once a year
(15% of $1500).
  If 100 million people *had income in that range, that 100 million times
$225.  pays for a lot of Medicare (or whatever you want to call it),  Plus
paying down the Debt.  Incomes below a certain amount (above)  would pay *no
Extra Tax, so you don't penalize poorer people but give them the same
healthcare as someone richer.
   That was what 'proportional taxation' was supposed to do back in the
1930s when Truman or ?? first put it into place in the U.S.
  Mid-1960s was date Canada decided to put in 'Universal Health Care', and
still has it today.  Here 'we' are 40 years later, and the U.S. Still
doesn't have a health care plan?  I don't understand that.

 I don't understand why 'some people's Employees'  (the Politicians you
elected to office),  appear to be given such a Long Line to run with your
Money.  If Pensions, and Healthcare were moved to the Top of Priorities
above Martiniis, and Corporate Jets,  perhaps some of the 'frills'  (like a
Heart Bypass)  could be provided as part of a Bill of Rights for Citizens
who pay for these things.

Doesn't that make (some) sense? (funding model for aging population)  End
ramble.  G./