Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Lancey Howard

This graph shows that the average man and woman (average defined in the study as average income over their working lives and living to the average life expectancy) who start receiving benefits in 2010 get over 3 times more in benefits than they pay in to the system! Of importance, the study accounts for inflation by calculating all past taxes and future payments in 2010 dollars to provide an accurate comparison.

If the notion that Medicare recipients are simply "getting back what they paid in" is false then where is the money coming from? Simply, the excess received is being borrowed from younger generations and the cost is more than we can bear.

48 posted on 03/02/2013 9:19:26 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: kabar

As far as medical costs are concerned, the more government sticks its filthy stinking paws in it, the faster the costs rise. The obvious answer is to extract government from health care. Additionally, medical costs are greatly effected by scumbag “jackpot justice” lawyers (like John Edwards, for example). Serious tort reform can bring down the costs significantly.


49 posted on 03/02/2013 9:30:36 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

To: kabar
By the way, I'm not sure what this means:

... the study accounts for inflation by calculating all past taxes and future payments in 2010 dollars to provide an accurate comparison.

Do the calculations adjust (to 2010 dollars) only the raw dollars that were paid in, or do they add the average compounded interest that would have been accumulated on top of those raw dollars had individuals invested the exact same number of dollars in exactly the same way over the course of their working lives themselves?

50 posted on 03/02/2013 9:40:03 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

To: kabar

When I look up the definition of Medicare it says “a social insurance program”. Should the government have started it or stuck their noses into such a program? No. But they did and it is forced participation. Not voluntary.

Given the fact that it is defined as a “social insurance program” it would operate like any other insurance program. A person will more than likely spend more on health costs than premiums contributed. The young and healthy subsidize the ill. It’s not stealing from anybody.

Like I said, the government had no business getting into the business of healthcare. Have a fit with them if you want to. Wait until the full effects of of Obamacare kick in. We ain’t seen nothing like the stealing from one segment for another yet which will occur. And it will all be forced participation.

(but your chart is real pretty)


53 posted on 03/02/2013 10:33:04 PM PST by berdie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

To: kabar

Three times more? What would $55k put in the bank in, say, 1975 be worth today?


64 posted on 03/03/2013 7:37:34 AM PST by ez (Laws only apply to little people. Criminals, politicians, and newsies are exempt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson