@BumbleBeeBoogie,
I hope you aren't offended if I use some of these numbers as an example of why medicare must be restructured. A worker who works for 45 years at an average of $50,000/year will have paid a total of $32,625 into medicare when he retires. His employer will have paid a matching amount for a total of $65,250 to cover all of that person's Part A expenses. Not many people averaged $50,000/yr over the past 45 years and not everyone who receives benefits paid into the system for a full 45 years (or at all in some cases). In 2010 the median income for full time employees aged 25 and older was $39,336. That means that well over half of the people retiring this year earned less at retirement than my mythical employee who averaged $50,000 for 45 years.
Part A expenses aren't paid out as a function of what was paid in. Every medicare eligible senior gets the same Part A benefit. But if the total pool of funds is only enough to cover approx $65,000/per senior then it's obvious that there isn't enough to go around. I'm not sure how much of your $122,531 bill comes under Part A expenses, but from what I've seen I think it's a pretty big percentage.
There is a change coming in 2013 that increases the amount paid in for those making over $200,000/year but even that isn't enough to come close to meeting the Part A expenses of a typical senior. The average life expectancy today of a retiring 65 year old is 18.6 years. We have a system that funds about $65,000 per fully employed senior for in-patient hospital services throughout their retirement years, which obviously doesn't come close to meeting the costs. I have no idea what the numbers are for the total enrollees compared to the fully employed.
Again, I'm not trying to point at you, but the numbers you're posting are a perfect example of why we must reform how medicare is structured.