Umm, I'm thinking you need to read up a bit on what this whole Western Wall thing is and why it is such a revered site.
That isn't a reflection of Judaism it is a reflection of people who comment online (on any topic). Seriously, why would you look to online comments for reasoned discussion?
Actually, that is not at all what the CMS actuary says at all. It makes no guesses as to the solvency of healthcare providers at all and Medicare Hospital Insurance (Part A) going 'bankrupt' simply means that the current funding structure won't cover 100% of expenses - which is expected in 2024 when it would only cover 87% of expected expenses. That 13% difference can be overcome by changing the funding structure (either through higher taxes, debt or coinsurance structure), reducing coverage (such as means testing coverage or raising the eligible age) or reducing reimbursement rates.
You are offering a false choice that is rooted in a fallacious presentation of the facts. And beyond all that, is still completely irrelevant to the question of what Jewish ethics says a physicians obligation to care is.
Actually, my prescription is universal healthcare - but that really isn't the point here.
If physicians were accepting of Jewish medical ethics (the actual topic of discussion that you seem to want to avoid despite entering into) they would accept it as an obligation to treat the poor even for lower compensation. If the community were operating under Jewish medical ethics they wouldn't allow any populated locale to go without a physician even if that meant higher taxes.
I bet you they could do it and provide for their family at higher than the median family income.
You seem to completely miss the premise of the thread - what would Jewish ethics say. And frankly, when it comes to the indigent they have even less room to maneuver as Jewish ethics would tell them to provide the service free of charge.
Are you saying I'm wrong that if medical professionals accepted less it wouldn't go bankrupt or are you saying they shouldn't have to accept less?
If the former, well then you just lack logic if the latter than is all well and good but that would not be in alignment to traditional Jewish medical ethics which was the topic of this thread.
Medicare (why you want to look at that in isolation of the rest of his healthcare policy I don't know, but whatever we can work with it) wouldn't go bankrupt if we chose to fund it more or medical professional took less in compensation. Those Jewish authorities would suggest it is both the communities responsibility to fund healthcare and the physicians responsibility to provide healing services for no more than a reasonable fee for their time.
These authorities tend to avoid responding to false choices.
You might need to refresh your memory of Rambam and Shulhan Aruch's views on providing healthcare before you go off claiming to know what Jewish values would suggest - it is much further away from Romney's plan than it is Obama's. You can start with Yoreh De'aH 336
I agree, universal, compulsory health care it is.