budget surplus would take the pressure off the beneficiaries and the government as well, by steadily lowering payroll and social security taxes. Another important reason that makes this proposal worthy is the fact that the national budget surplus will continue to increase beyond 2010. In fact, according to George W. Bush, the budget surplus is expected to grow well past $5 trillion over the next 10 years (Bush). Considering the fact that Medicare expenditures project to cost around $452.2 billion over that same period (Bush), there will be plenty of money still available for military, education, and other government expenditures. Obviously, if the budget surplus were to decrease or remain stagnant over this time, it would be very costly to maintain Medicare under this proposal, but due to the budget's optimistic (to say the least) outlook, the proposal is very sensible and effective.Perhaps the only other alternative to Medicare itself would be for the government to adopt a centralized form of healthcare, similar to the one employed in Canada. In that program, every citizen would be entitled to the same benefits regardless of age, disability, or unemployment. Although this program seems like it would be for the best, it would take many years to implement the system. Legislation for a major issue such as healthcare normally spans several years (Frist), and is one reason that the government and neither party has ever brought the idea to the forefront. Furthermore, the financing for a public healthcare plan would shift more to the people since the government would be realizing all of the costs. Although still in use in Canada, the public healthcare system caused quite a scandal in the late 1980's in the province of Alberta. In order to make up for the enormous costs accrued by the program, restrictions were placed on the amount of drugs that were to be prescribed by physicians (Marmor 97). This raised many concerns over the prog...
