Posted on 05/09/2007 5:01:08 AM PDT by Brilliant
What's going to happen when the money runs out for Medicare? A recently released report by the program's trustees found that within seven years Medicare taxes will fall short of Medicare expenses by more than 45%. What's more, Medicare and Social Security combined are on track to eat up the entire federal budget...
The projected cash flow deficits in these two programs are staggering. For Social Security, the trustees estimate the 75-year burden on general revenues at $6.7 trillion. For Medicare the comparable burden on general revenues is $24.2 trillion... Thus the total burden these programs will impose on federal finances over the next 75 years is $31.9 trillion...
Members of Congress will not have to wait long to experience the practical effects of all of this. Until a few years ago, Social Security and Medicare were taking in more than they spent... Thus they provided revenue for other federal programs. That situation is now reversed, and last year the combined deficits in the two programs claimed 5.3% of federal income tax revenues. In 15 years these two programs will require more than a fourth of income tax revenues...
Could we force the elderly to pay for future deficits with higher Medicare premiums? Monthly premiums in constant dollars would more than quadruple by 2020, and be almost 30 times their current level by 2080...
Using taxation to fund the projected Medicare shortfalls is equally unpalatable. We would need a 10% increase in all nonpayroll taxes by 2020 and a 50% increase by 2080...
So what else can be done? ...On the demand side, someone must choose between health care and other uses of money... On the supply side, the way health care is produced must fundamentally be changed, replacing cost-increasing innovations with cost-reducing ones...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I understand all that quite well. There's no "fund" there, just a bunch of T-bills. And T-bills are just IOU's. By the same token, the US government "owns" nothing more than raw political power. But I have political power, too. Not as much as the government, but collectively with all the rest of those in my age peer group, we should be able to get back some of our money that we paid in.
As an aside, those who feel the present system is not "fair" or "unjust" are under no obligation to file for it. One doesn't have to collect it. It's sort of like all the do-gooders who want to do good with someone else's money. If someone feels he isn't paying enough taxes, merely send and extra payment in to the US Treasury. They'll cash the check, I promise you.
Depending on your age, you may get back much more than you paid in. I do find it interesting that you believe that you deserve "to get back some of our money that we paid in." It really isn't your money once you make your contribution. I think I should get back money from my homeowner's policy after paying into it for 30 years without ever making a claim. It does show the unfairness of the SS system and why it should be changed.
I have never said anything about abolishing private insurance. One of the solutions would be for everyone to have and pay for their own health insurance. The availability of private insurance is not the problem but instead employer and government provided insurance which fosters higher healthcare costs.
I would love to see Medicare/caid phased out but I know that this is not going to happen because the American people are addicted to government.
I have no problem increasing the supply of doctors if it is done by the free market. I’m simply stating that under our current payer system it will not result in lower costs. If we go back to a fee for service system where the doctor can set his own prices than increasing supply would lower cost. You are right that there are many doctors who want to see supply limited because it would protect their pocketbook (so they think). I’m not one of them. I want a free and open market in which to compete.
I agree with you 100% that socialism is not the answer – it will only make things worse.
Let the thieves who did the stealing suffer the usual consequences of an angry mob.
L
Whether or not the money is "mine" or "ours" or the "government's" isn't the issue. I really think I'm entitled to SS benefits and I intend to file for them. Didn't you?
One other minor but important point. The money paid into Social Security wasn’t a “contribution.” It was a tax seized from me by the government at the point of a gun. I had no choice.
I’ve said several times here that I wish there had never been a SS system set up. But that decision was made for me before I was born. So we are all left to fix the thing as best we can. But those who paid shouldn’t be the ones toting the freight.
Of course. I will get back more than ten times what I put into it. In just two years, I have got back all of my contributions. It is just the word entitled that makes me cringe since the USG decides what you are really entitled to. They make the rules and can change them at any time.
Agreed. The best example is the tax code. Every day the government decides how much of the fuit of my own labor I get to keep. Slavery is nothing more than a 100% tax rate.
Agreed, it is not voluntary for either you or your employer.
I’ve said several times here that I wish there had never been a SS system set up. But that decision was made for me before I was born. So we are all left to fix the thing as best we can. But those who paid shouldn’t be the ones toting the freight.
We can't fix it. We need to change it. The ones who will be toting the freight for you when you retire are the twenty and thirty somethings. You are toting the freight for folks like me, i.e., you are one of the 3.3 workers supporting each retiree. My parents [now deceased] and I are the ones who have really benefitted from the system. We are getting back far more than we contributed. It worked for us, but it won't work for my daughter. She will be one of the two workers trying to support each retiree.
I think we’re pretty close in our views. I think the major difference is that I see the current health insurance system as a given.
I really don’t think that having everyone pay for his own health insurance would solve the problem. First of all, individual health insurance is very expensive and difficult to get because like all other kinds of insurance, the underwriters can look at your health history and your claims record. If you make a claim on it, they terminate you. If not, then why have it?
The reason employer based health plans work is that they are insuring a group which is presumably predictable to some degree as to claims. The reason why government plans make a little more sense from an insurance standpoint is that they take the ultimate group—everyone.
If we’re going to have health insurance, then it will most likely be employer or government based. I think that it would be good to go back to a direct pay system, but that’s probably the last thing that is going to happen. The closest we might come is if our present system opts for a very high deductible that effectively makes our health insurance into a catastrophic health care system.
Personally, I don’t see why we should not do that, but it doesn’t look like it’s in the cards, at least at this point.
Your right, individual health insurance is very expensive because the demand is currently low and there are few companies that provide it. If health insurance was like car insurance the picture would be very different. Yes, there is a difficulty with those that have such severe pre-existing conditions that they may not be insurable. But even there I would prefer a solution that does not involve confiscating other people’s money. Individual charity could go a long way just as it used to.
I agree that the current employer/government provider system is not going away anytime soon. The crux is that this system is the problem and healthcare costs will continue to rise unless the system is changed.
And, pray tell, what age would that be?
Fearless, fearless prediction: it ain't gonna happen.
I doubt you will see the retirement age raised above 70 under ANY circumstances. I pretty much doubt you will see it raised much above 67.
Yes, folks _live_ longer. But the point at which a person's body and mind "wear down" from being able to work competently and full-time in many occupations is about 65+. I realize everyone is an individual, and that _some_ can work at their chosen occupations (or, perhaps the occupations they ended up with in life, even if "unchosen") beyond 70 or so. But reach that age, and the law of diminishing returns kicks in VERY quickly. By age 70 most folks _should_ be retired from full time work.
Again, what age will "restore the 16:1 ratio"?
- John
I haven't a clue. My point was merely to illustrate the actuarial facts of when the scheme was created. I agree the retirement age will not likely be raised enough to bring that ratio back. Not politically possible. Nor is it likely that taxes can be raised very much more. And I can assure you the idea that "those Boomers who saved on their own and don't 'need' SS should give it up" won't happen either.
Americans will not wait "because it is right." Nevertheless, I fear they will wait.
Yes, if you’d read any of my previous posts you’d have seen that supplemental was what I discussed. Supplemental is not primary, however, and that’s the point I was making. There is no choice for “primary” care insurance once you reach medicare age.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.