The Debt Ceiling: Slaves to Debt?

[patches70]

I'm confused, the public option was a health insurance program, not subsidized by government at all. If you wanted health insurance, you paid your premiums into the public option. Explain the "expensive".

Who is the payee? The Government.

Sure, people pay a premium into the program, a cheap premium we are told, "affordable".

It works the same way as the employer provided insurance.

You see, big companies are what is called "self insured". Workers pay a premium, of which half the actual total premium is paid by the company. When the worker goes to the doctor/hospital, it is the company that pays the actual medical bills. The insurance company or plan is just an administrator, they collect a fee to manage the companies insurance program. But the bills are paid by the company itself.

This is what caused so much problems. You see, workers who had really good company provided insurance would go to the doctor often, which cost the companies more and more, and it had gotten to the point where every company had to keep raising premiums and deductibles while lowering coverage to get those costs under control. It was working out that even when the worker got a raise throughout the year he had to spend that money on increased medical costs, thus was getting no where financially and in many cases was falling behind.

The Government will find itself in the same boat. But they will be bound by law, and won't be able to increase premiums or reduce coverage quickly to keep costs manageable.

With the public option all other options will quickly disappear. Those companies will find it cheaper to just pay the fines/fees for the government plan and force all the workers to go that route and the companies don't have to worry about paying the medical bills for their workers anymore. Every worker in the US will get dumped into the public option, it won't be an "option" at that point, it will be the only game in town.

Since medical costs are going to continue to skyrocket at paces far exceeding inflation, the Government will find itself paying out a lot more money than budgeted for unless they ration the coverage, which they promised they would not do. It is interesting to note that medical costs are not factored into the government calculations of inflation. That is why we have "zero" or "low" inflation and are able to meet the targeted inflation rate in years past, because they were not counting medical costs which have risen in price 10X and more faster than inflation.

The companies who provide insurance now, though they collect premiums, medical for their workers is a cost to the company.
The Government, though they will be collecting premiums, medical for people on the public option will be a cost to the taxpayer. Neither will be able to collect as much or more in premiums as they will shell out for medical bills for the worker/member.

Don't get me wrong, something has to be done with the insurance problems and especially medical costs. The public option merely transfers the costs from companies and individuals to the taxpayer. I don't think it will actually curb costs at all unless the Government goes to draconian methods.

Like I said, the stage is set and the public option will be coming eventually. It will play out like this-

Despite the passage of the Health care Bill, costs will still increase faster than the rate of inflation. Insurance companies will have to raise premiums at even higher and faster rates to pay for the new regulations. The public will clamor something to be done and the public option will be put into effect. Companies across the US will drop their insurance plans, pay the fee per worker to the government and the workers will be force into taking the public plan. Workers will be free to go find their own insurance, but they won't have the company paying half their premium. Workers will have to pay twice the amount they were paying with the company insurance, and the coverage will be about the same. Only the very expensive plans will ever offer 100% coverage, which most will not be able to afford.

[Phatscotty]

What did you think of the public option idea?

It would be more expensive than most realize. It is coming none the less though anyway, but-

Government doesn't really care about efficiency because when they are inefficient they just tax you more. There is no real sense of urgency to improve the process. I know, you hear lip service all the time about how the politicians are going to make things better in government but the decision making process is so convoluted that it takes forever for things to be studied, tested, debated, added earmarks, throw in the kitchen sink before final approval is ever made on things.

Thus, if the Government estimates it will cost X amount over Y amount of time you can be pretty darn sure that the actual costs will be X(10) over Y-(1/2 the time). When private companies are inefficient they go out of business, well, as along as the taxpayer doesn't bail them out that is.

The Government just can't be trusted to do a good job. These are the same people who can't even keep top secret documents from being viewed, downloaded and disseminated by a lowly private, and we are supposed to trust them to keep our medical affairs in order? Already record numbers of doctors are denying taking new medicare patients because of the poor reimbursement, red tape and added cost to keep all the paperwork in order. Government is just a nightmare.

Now, to keep stuff like what is happening with doctors not accepting new medicare patients, if the Government were to require doctors to see patients as whatever price that the Government deems a "fair" price, we have another problem in regards to liberty and rights. That is, the doctor is getting screwed.

And by God the hypochondriacs will eat up public funds like a pig gulping down swill.

However, the public option system will eventually come to pass, so it doesn't really matter what anyone thinks about it. We will find out soon enough if it will work like the politicians want everyone to believe it will. That is, if everything doesn't totally fall apart before then. Just never forget, if the government is running something you will have to pay for it one way or another. Be it through taxes, fees, by the end of the bayonet or paid by your children and paid by their children, it will be collected out of us one way or another.

Hell, I am starting to get older now, I just might like it. I just might suck up as much "free" health care as I can get since all the young people will be working and paying for it.....LMAO.

You say things better than I can, but bravo.

I hear you on the last part. But that is part of the control, they make you pay so much into the system, they are basically creating citizens who demand "damn right I'm getting every penny back I can. You know how much I gave to them over my life?"

It's not easy, especially when we see everyone around us over-spunging. It all comes to to responsibility an character. Like honesty, do you know how hard it is to be continually honest? Almost impossible. It's too easy to give into lying. We have to set higher standards for ourselves. America has a shitload of irresponsible citizens. Luckily, we have more responsible ones. But the "responsibility" gap is narrowing, and these gov't programs bring more irresponsibility/bailout mentality every day. Don't get me wrong, I am NOT saying do away with ALL gov't programs. However, we have clearly crossed the line a long time ago where gov't got way too big and inefficient.

[GreecePwns]

It would be more expensive than most realize. It is coming none the less though anyway, but-

IIRC the public option was not included in the passed bill. The Senate "Cadillac plans tax" one passed.

Government doesn't really care about efficiency because when they are inefficient they just tax you more. There is no real sense of urgency to improve the process. I know, you hear lip service all the time about how the politicians are going to make things better in government but the decision making process is so convoluted that it takes forever for things to be studied, tested, debated, added earmarks, throw in the kitchen sink before final approval is ever made on things.

Thus, if the Government estimates it will cost X amount over Y amount of time you can be pretty darn sure that the actual costs will be X(10) over Y-(1/2 the time). When private companies are inefficient they go out of business, well, as along as the taxpayer doesn't bail them out that is.

The Government just can't be trusted to do a good job. These are the same people who can't even keep top secret documents from being viewed, downloaded and disseminated by a lowly private, and we are supposed to trust them to keep our medical affairs in order? Already record numbers of doctors are denying taking new medicare patients because of the poor reimbursement, red tape and added cost to keep all the paperwork in order. Government is just a nightmare.

Ah, our first self-contradiction. Government run programs costs, in this case Medicare are too high, yet reimbursement rates are too low. Which one is it? The real reason why "costs are higher than expected" in the case of Medicare is that life expectancy grew significantly faster than expected when Medicare was created. In other words, people given access to health care were able to live longer.

Here's a way to keep them much more accountable: ban earmarks and completely public funded campaigns. These people answer to us, not whoever donates the most to them. And you want states' rights? There's your states right to pay for its own projects.

However, the public option system will eventually come to pass, so it doesn't really matter what anyone thinks about it. We will find out soon enough if it will work like the politicians want everyone to believe it will. That is, if everything doesn't totally fall apart before then. Just never forget, if the government is running something you will have to pay for it one way or another. Be it through taxes, fees, by the end of the bayonet or paid by your children and paid by their children, it will be collected out of us one way or another.

Once again, the public option did not come to pass, and we already have two of them. One of which, Medicare, helped massively to contribute to a shrinking senior citizen poverty rate (the other massive contributor being Social Security). I'll clarify my position as being against this bill and against free market health care. I am for Medicare being the be all end all. In all countries with publicly funded health care system (i.e. every developed nation except us) the cost as a % of GDP is lower. This is explained by Medicares profit margin (4 percent vs. 30 percent of private insurance).

[patches70]

Opps, my fault, I assumed people understood how it works. I will have to explain it seems.

Ah, our first self-contradiction. Government run programs costs, in this case Medicare are too high, yet reimbursement rates are too low. Which one is it?

A medical treatment has a cost. Lets us take for example a routine broken leg. We will use three people all having the same problem and receiving the same treatment from the same doctor. For simplicity we will say the cost is $100.
-Person A, who is uninsured, ends up getting a bill for $100 and that is what he owes.
-Person B, who is insured through his job, gets a bill. The doctor is part of his network and the insurance has negotiated a discount. His bill will end up being only $90. Insurance pays for 100% and the cost to the person is $0, after paying the deductible and co-pays.
-Person C, who is on medicare, gets a bill. Medicare for this particular procedure, will only pay $80 for the procedure. Medicare covers %80 of that, or $64. The other $16 the patient owes.

Medicare pays significantly less than any other insurance. They have to, to make the money spread out since there are more people on medicare than any other insurance. All private insurance companies negotiate discounts with doctors. That is why you have "in-network" and "out of network" doctors for a particular insurance. Those who are "in network" successfully negotiated a price. The "out of network" doctors have for one reason or another, decided that what was being offered by that particular insurance company was not enough, and thus did not agree at a discount rate.

Medicare pays the least of all. so much less that it forces doctors to stop taking medicare patients because it ends up costing that doctor money. In effect, you go see the doctor and he ends up losing money. No one can do that for very long, no matter what profession you are in.

This is how medicare controls their costs. They usually do a combination of raising premiums and taxes, raising age of eligibility and decrease the payments to doctors.

Even with this, medicare is still in the hole now.
In 2007 Medicare received $207.1 billion in income and had $203.1 billion in expenditures. This is the last year that medicare took in more money than it paid out.
In 2008 it was $204.8 billion in income but expenditures was $229.5 billion.
In 2009, income was $230.9 billion, expenditures $245.5 billion.
2010, income was $243 billion, expenditures $260.5 billion.
You are seeing the trend here? So I don't really understand how you can say this-

This is explained by Medicares profit margin (4 percent vs. 30 percent of private insurance).

Medicare doesn't make any "profit" and besides, Government is not a for profit business.

Despite paying out to doctors the lowest amount of anyinsurance, we are steadily spending more than we are taking in.

You say that it is because people are living longer, but it is because people tend to have the majority of medical expenses when they are older, say around the time they become eligible for medicare. It is just natural, when we get older we get sick easier, get hurt easier, body starts breaking down due to age. In medicare, despite the premiums paid, despite the taxes paid to the medicare fund when we are young, most end up spending far more than they ever contributed during their working years.

Oh, and Medicare Fraud is a serious problem as well.

Anyway you look at it, Medicare is in deep fiscal trouble. There are 45 million Americans on Medicare now. The only way to keep the whole thing from going insolvent is to do one or more of these things, likely do all of them-
1- Keep raising the eligibility age.
2- Raise the taxes.
3- Raise the premiums.
4- Pay the health care providers less.

All of those things obviously have down sides to all involved. From the doctors, to the patients to the people who are young and contributing to the fund. A report put out in 2007 said to eliminate the deficit it would require a 122% increase in the payroll taxes or a 51% reduction in benefits or a combination of the two.

http://www.actuary.org/pdf/medicare/trustees_08.pdf

IIRC the public option was not included in the passed bill.

It wasn't for lack of trying. They wanted to go the public option. It just wasn't going to fly though, because people look at Medicare which is basically the same thing and see where the public option will lead us. Into economic ruin.
However, the bill that did pass is really a legislative time bomb and when it goes off the public option will become a reality.

My whole point is that to fix all these things we have to have a sound currency. We don't have that now. Until we do, nothing will be fixed, only the problems deferred. That goes for medicare, SS, welfare, whatever, it all has a foundation in economics. If the economics are bad, then everything built on it will tumble.

You want to keep old people from being in poverty? Well, make sure that their currency doesn't lose all it's value over the course of a lifetime. That way people can put money away and when it comes time to retire the money they saved will still buy the goods and services they will need.

Here's a way to keep them much more accountable: ban earmarks and completely public funded campaigns.

You are not being clear here, are you saying
-Ban earmarks
-Ban public funded campaigns?
That is what your sentence says, but I think you mean Ban Earmarks and make politicians run public funded campaigns.
If that indeed is what you meant, I would remind you that Mr Obama promised in the beginning that he would use the public campaign funds when he ran for President. Then he broke that promise. McCain, however, did go the public campaign fund route, and you see where it got him. He got outspent by more than 3 to 1.
Mr Obama plans on spending 1 billion dollars for his reelection in 2012.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47596.html

Will this alone dissuade you from voting for him?
I wonder who is buying Mr Obama.....

Anyway, I don't see how eliminating earmarks makes much difference on the solvency of Medicare. Keeping politicians "accountable" is pretty LOL since so many people vote strictly down party lines. Either have a "D" or and "R" in front of their names, regardless of their actual positions on issues, is the deciding factor in most people's votes. So, I suppose we get what we deserve. The politicians are good at blaming everyone else but themselves when something goes wrong.

We should be focusing on fixing our fiscal house, then we will have a better chance to work on all the other problems and just maybe, actually solve them....

[Aradhus]

I was asking about the public option on its own, not as part of the bill passed(where the problems with a public option would come from).

Also SS is financially sound. And will be so for decades.

[Phatscotty]

I was asking about the public option on its own, not as part of the bill passed(where the problems with a public option would come from).

Also SS is financially sound. And will be so for decades.

People always think Ponzi schemes are sound, all the way up until the very last second before it goes broke.

[Aradhus]

Is there a right wing talking point you haven't made love to?

[Phatscotty]

Is there a right wing talking point you haven't made love to?

A ponzi scheme is a ponzi scheme, mate.

[Aradhus]

Is there a right wing talking point you haven't made love to?

A ponzi scheme is a ponzi scheme, mate.

Do you even know what a ponzi scheme is?

Social Security is not a ponzi scheme.

[Phatscotty]

Is there a right wing talking point you haven't made love to?

A ponzi scheme is a ponzi scheme, mate.

Do you even know what a ponzi scheme is?

Social Security is not a ponzi scheme.

I would like to see you poke holes on these issues

The largest Ponzi scheme of all, according to scholar Walter Williams, “collects about $785 billion annually from 163 million [investors] and pays out $585 billion annually to 50 million [other investors].”

The scheme in question is, of course, Social Security. Says Williams, “According to Social Security trustee estimates, around [the year] 2016 the amount of Social Security benefits paid will exceed taxes collected.” Social Security is unsustainable because the pool of new “investors” is shrinking, while the number of beneficiaries is increasing. 


That Social Security is a Ponzi scheme is confirmed by Thomas Sowell:

Social Security has been a pyramid Ponzi scheme from the beginning. Those who paid in first received money from those who paid in second -- and so on, generation after generation. This was great so long as the small generation when Social Security began was being supported by larger generations resulting from the baby boom. But, like all pyramid schemes, the whole thing is in big trouble once the pyramid stops growing. When the baby boomers retire, that will be the moment of truth.

There is no statistical escape from bankruptcy or default, either open or through inflation, yet Congress pretends that this is not inevitable. Why? Because voters will remove from office any Congressman who tells the truth about what is statistically irreversible. The question today is the form that the bankruptcy will take: outright default, mass inflation, or a salami-slicing reduction of benefits.

[GreecePwns]

Is there a right wing talking point you haven't made love to?

A ponzi scheme is a ponzi scheme, mate.

Do you even know what a ponzi scheme is?

Social Security is not a ponzi scheme.

I would like to see you poke holes on these issues

The largest Ponzi scheme of all, according to scholar Walter Williams, “collects about $785 billion annually from 163 million [investors] and pays out $585 billion annually to 50 million [other investors].”

The scheme in question is, of course, Social Security. Says Williams, “According to Social Security trustee estimates, around [the year] 2016 the amount of Social Security benefits paid will exceed taxes collected.” Social Security is unsustainable because the pool of new “investors” is shrinking, while the number of beneficiaries is increasing. 


That Social Security is a Ponzi scheme is confirmed by Thomas Sowell:

Social Security has been a pyramid Ponzi scheme from the beginning. Those who paid in first received money from those who paid in second -- and so on, generation after generation. This was great so long as the small generation when Social Security began was being supported by larger generations resulting from the baby boom. But, like all pyramid schemes, the whole thing is in big trouble once the pyramid stops growing. When the baby boomers retire, that will be the moment of truth.

There is no statistical escape from bankruptcy or default, either open or through inflation, yet Congress pretends that this is not inevitable. Why? Because voters will remove from office any Congressman who tells the truth about what is statistically irreversible. The question today is the form that the bankruptcy will take: outright default, mass inflation, or a salami-slicing reduction of benefits.

It's a Ponzi scheme once the government runs out of money in the Trust Fund,which as it is it will keep growing until 2027. But anyway, I proposed to you a rather simple fix to Social Security's woes. Heck, after you complained there wreen't enough unnecessary cuts in mine because I met halfway. I proposed one increase in revenue (removing the tax cap) and one cut in benefits (specifically for the top half of earners) and with those two Social Security breaks even after 75 years, after which the Baby Boomer problem won't be such a significant one since they'll all be dead.

[Phatscotty]

Greece, #1 this is a response to someone else about Ponzi schemes.

#2 really, we will have to see what is proposed. You may or may not have thee answer, and nobody would ever notice. What I do know is that we do not have all the information, and also that if it were as easy as you say it is, it wouldn't be a problem.

I am pointing at the foundation. all ponzi schems get papered over, and they all end as well. AS soon as the benefits are not enough (we are darn close) it's over.

[Aradhus]

What fraud is involed in social security?

[Phatscotty]

What fraud is involed in social security?

are you unfamiliar with "the pyramid" strategy?

[Aradhus]

Fraud pertaining to social security, please? From its inception, its intention, and where the fraudulent practices started, and by whom.

[Phatscotty]

Fraud pertaining to social security?

Why dont you try this. Tell me why it isn't a pyramid scam? It's called debate. Go ahead, make your case.

Pyramid strategies ARE a fraud, SS is a pyramid. if you disagree, then show some examples why a pyramid scam isn't a fraud and attempt to edify the wonderful Pyramid scam and it's history.

[GreecePwns]

Pyramid strategies are fraud when they are not able to sustain themselves and the people involved cannot get the payments they were promised. We can agree on this?

Well, I will contend that Social Security is not a pyramid scheme because of the massive trust fund that is behind the program. It has enough money to guarantee safety as it is for nearly three decades. This problem of the money running out is so easily fixed that Social Security can achieve real stability for a century at the very least while at the same time being a massive contributor the declining poverty of seniors. On top of that, when the Administration has asked for access to its trust fund money since its inception, government has honored its promise every time. I understand the sentiment that government can't be trusted etc. but considering the Administration study released a report last year about the effects nearly 100 different individual changes would have over a 75 year period, if they can't fix this then they really can't fix anything.

[Phatscotty]

Pyramid strategies are fraud when they are not able to sustain themselves and the people involved cannot get the payments they were promised. We can agree on this?

Well, I will contend that Social Security is not a pyramid scheme because of the massive trust fund that is behind the program. It has enough money to guarantee safety as it is for nearly three decades. This problem of the money running out is so easily fixed that Social Security can achieve real stability for a century at the very least while at the same time being a massive contributor the declining poverty of seniors. On top of that, when the Administration has asked for access to its trust fund money since its inception, government has honored its promise every time. I understand the sentiment that government can't be trusted etc. but considering the Administration study released a report last year about the effects nearly 100 different individual changes would have over a 75 year period, if they can't fix this then they really can't fix anything.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/09/news/ec ... /index.htm

FORTUNE -- There's real money in the world, then there's funny money -- stuff that looks real, but isn't.

Today, let's talk about one of the world's biggest piles of funny money -- the $2.54 trillion Social Security trust fund. The trust fund matters now, because Social Security revealed last week that it plans to tap it for $41 billion this year, and will begin tapping it on a regular basis in less than five years.


This year's cash deficit, the first since the early 1980s and the biggest ever, means the Treasury will have to borrow money to redeem some of the trust fund's Treasury securities. Even at a time when Uncle Sam is borrowing $1.5 trillion a year to keep his checks from bouncing, $41 billion is real money.

Here's why the trust fund has no economic value. Let's say I begin taking Social Security when I hit the full retirement age of 66 later this year. Because its tax revenues are below its expenses, Social Security would have to cash in about $3,400 of its trust fund Treasury securities each month to get the money to pay my wife and me. The Treasury, in turn, would have to borrow $3,400 from investors to get the money to pay Social Security. The bottom line is that the government has to borrow from investors to pay me, regardless of how big the trust fund is.

It's not surprising that Social Security is now running a negative cash flow -- I predicted a year ago it was likely to happen this year, and wrote in February that it had happened.

Democrats, for the most part, say everything's fine because the trust fund has a fat balance. Republicans, who were happy to have Social Security taxes subsidize tax cuts for 25 years, have suddenly developed holier-than-thou fiscal rectitude. They're both wrong -- the Democrats financially, the Republicans morally.

Let me show you in two different ways how useless the trust fund is. The first is a quote from the introduction to the 2009 Social Security trustees report, the second is the graphic by my Fortune colleague Robert Dominguez that accompanies this article.

The 2009 quote, spotted by Allen Smith, economics professor emeritus at Eastern Illinois University, and author of The Big Lie: How Our Government Hoodwinked the Public, Emptied the S.S. Trust Fund, and caused The Great Economic Collapse, is telling.

It says that, "Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public."

In other words, the trust fund is of no economic value.

This sentence wasn't in the 2010 introduction, released last week. Treasury says it still stands by it, but that the Social Security trustees decided not to include it this year because it merely reiterates the obvious.

Now, to the "Geithner bond," which shows how easy (and useless) it would be for Treasury to stick as many bonds as needed into the trust fund, and declare Social Security to be sound forever.

You know, of course, why this wouldn't work -- at least, I hope you know. It's because the U.S. government ultimately has to pay its bills with cash, not with its own IOUs. In the long run, you need cash -- real money -- not funny money. Other than being a send-up, this hypothetical Geithner trust fund bond is no different than the Treasury bonds the trust fund owns, except that it carries a higher interest rate.

There are ways, even at this late hour, to begin turning the trust fund from funny money into real money without unduly stressing the government's finances. (I've discussed them before, and will do so again, but not today.) Given that taxpayers are bailing out the most imprudent companies and people in the country, we damn well should bail out Social Security, the mainstay of low- and middle-income people.

But let's not kid ourselves that a fat trust fund is the solution. When Social Security's cash deficits begin running more than $100 billion a year within a decade, it's going to take a lot of money to keep the checks coming. And it sure won't be funny.

[GreecePwns]

A medical treatment has a cost. Lets us take for example a routine broken leg. We will use three people all having the same problem and receiving the same treatment from the same doctor. For simplicity we will say the cost is $100.
-Person A, who is uninsured, ends up getting a bill for $100 and that is what he owes.
-Person B, who is insured through his job, gets a bill. The doctor is part of his network and the insurance has negotiated a discount. His bill will end up being only $90. Insurance pays for 100% and the cost to the person is $0, after paying the deductible and co-pays.
-Person C, who is on medicare, gets a bill. Medicare for this particular procedure, will only pay $80 for the procedure. Medicare covers %80 of that, or $64. The other $16 the patient owes.

Medicare pays significantly less than any other insurance. They have to, to make the money spread out since there are more people on medicare than any other insurance. All private insurance companies negotiate discounts with doctors. That is why you have "in-network" and "out of network" doctors for a particular insurance. Those who are "in network" successfully negotiated a price. The "out of network" doctors have for one reason or another, decided that what was being offered by that particular insurance company was not enough, and thus did not agree at a discount rate.

Medicare pays the least of all. so much less that it forces doctors to stop taking medicare patients because it ends up costing that doctor money. In effect, you go see the doctor and he ends up losing money. No one can do that for very long, no matter what profession you are in.

Well after all this, why does survey after survey show that doctors support single payer systems? Do they love getting screwed over that much?

...83 percent of psychiatrists, 69 percent of emergency medicine specialists, 65 percent of pediatricians, 64 percent of internists, 60 percent of family physicians and 55 percent of general surgeons favor a national health insurance plan.

Even with this, medicare is still in the hole now.
In 2007 Medicare received $207.1 billion in income and had $203.1 billion in expenditures. This is the last year that medicare took in more money than it paid out.
In 2008 it was $204.8 billion in income but expenditures was $229.5 billion.
In 2009, income was $230.9 billion, expenditures $245.5 billion.
2010, income was $243 billion, expenditures $260.5 billion.

...

In medicare, despite the premiums paid, despite the taxes paid to the medicare fund when we are young, most end up spending far more than they ever contributed during their working years.

People are living longer than the makers of Medicare projected. Of course when Medicare was created they accounted for increases in life expectancy. Just not at this rate of growth. In other words, the program's giving more people access to health care has been a success in keeping people alive longer. What else could you ask for from a health care program other than solvency?

Anyway you look at it, Medicare is in deep fiscal trouble. There are 45 million Americans on Medicare now. The only way to keep the whole thing from going insolvent is to do one or more of these things, likely do all of them-
1- Keep raising the eligibility age.
2- Raise the taxes.
3- Raise the premiums.
4- Pay the health care providers less.

All of those things obviously have down sides to all involved. From the doctors, to the patients to the people who are young and contributing to the fund. A report put out in 2007 said to eliminate the deficit it would require a 122% increase in the payroll taxes or a 51% reduction in benefits or a combination of the two.

http://www.actuary.org/pdf/medicare/trustees_08.pdf

In the passed bill those making more than $250,000 will see #2 and #3 on this list. And I'm not sure about it entirely but the so-called "Cadillac plans tax" would go to Medicare.

It wasn't for lack of trying. They wanted to go the public option. It just wasn't going to fly though, because people look at Medicare which is basically the same thing and see where the public option will lead us. Into economic ruin.
However, the bill that did pass is really a legislative time bomb and when it goes off the public option will become a reality

Speculation, unless you don't believe the CBO's prediction it will reduce the deficit and will take Eric Cantor's "10 years of taxes for 6 years of fixes" estimate as the complete truth.

My whole point is that to fix all these things we have to have a sound currency. We don't have that now. Until we do, nothing will be fixed, only the problems deferred. That goes for medicare, SS, welfare, whatever, it all has a foundation in economics. If the economics are bad, then everything built on it will tumble.

You want to keep old people from being in poverty? Well, make sure that their currency doesn't lose all it's value over the course of a lifetime. That way people can put money away and when it comes time to retire the money they saved will still buy the goods and services they will need.

I can agree on this for the most part.

If that indeed is what you meant, I would remind you that Mr Obama promised in the beginning that he would use the public campaign funds when he ran for President. Then he broke that promise. McCain, however, did go the public campaign fund route, and you see where it got him. He got outspent by more than 3 to 1.
Mr Obama plans on spending 1 billion dollars for his reelection in 2012.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47596.html

Will this alone dissuade you from voting for him?
I wonder who is buying Mr Obama.....

Sorry for the typo. This is what I meant.

I did not vote for Obama, nor will I ever vote for a "business Democrat" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) over a true liberal. I supported Kucinich in the primaries and voted Nader in the general election, and am a registered Green Party member. I actually admire McCain's efforts when it comes to campaign finance reform. It's a stark contrast to someone like a Mitch McConnell who is the symbol of political greed in the Senate.

As for Obama, he is bought by the insurance industry I can tell you that. They helped write a lot of this bill and were all for it until the liberals in Congress proposed amendments to it. He is a business Democrat masquerading as a liberal, so that the real liberal stances are looked at as an extreme view.

Anyway, I don't see how eliminating earmarks makes much difference on the solvency of Medicare. Keeping politicians "accountable" is pretty LOL since so many people vote strictly down party lines. Either have a "D" or and "R" in front of their names, regardless of their actual positions on issues, is the deciding factor in most people's votes. So, I suppose we get what we deserve. The politicians are good at blaming everyone else but themselves when something goes wrong.

Well proportional representation (and therefore inclusion of more parties) is a pipe dream, so I can agree with this sentiment.

[GreecePwns]

Nice copying and pasting. You realize that article also makes the case that we should preserve Social Security? On top of that the author clearly does not understand how this trust fund thing works. Social Security has its own separate budget, one thing this author tries to paint as a fiction. The trust fund invests in these government bonds and does get money on its separate budget from the interest. Unless of course he's trying to say these bonds are worth nothing.

As your arch-nemesis Krugman notes:

What happens in 2018 or whenever, when benefits payments exceed payroll tax revenues?

The answer, very clearly, is nothing.

The Social Security system won’t be in trouble: it will, in fact, still have a growing trust fund, because of the interest that the trust earns on its accumulated surplus. The only way Social Security gets in trouble is if Congress votes not to honor U.S. government bonds held by Social Security. That’s not going to happen. So legally, mechanically, 2018 has no meaning.

Now it’s true that rising benefit costs will be a drag on the federal budget. So will rising Medicare costs. So will the ongoing drain from tax cuts. So will whatever wars we get into. I can’t find a story under which Social Security payments, as opposed to other things, become a crucial budgetary problem in 2018.

What we really have is a looming crisis in the General Fund. Social Security, with its own dedicated tax, has been run responsibly; the rest of the government has not.

So why are we talking about a looming Social Security crisis again?

I'll answer his rhetorical question. The reason that Social Security has been made into an issue is that paying back those bonds, the government would need two things: a cut in their earmarks and an actual long-overdue tax on the wealthiest of this country. It is politically easier to vilify Social Security as being “evil socialism” than it is to confront the real widening income disparities in this country. As we can't really trust government to do these things at the moment, following something like my proposal would give us a century to get to that point.

[Phatscotty]

You are questioning Thomas Sowell now?

I copied and pasted, because there are others who can articulate and pontificate and bloviate far more accurate than I can. However, this is a man and a philosophy that fits in with my understanding of economics. I have been paying attetiontion closely to the economics for over 13 years. as intensely as I do now. I read every single day. That doesn't make me right of course, or the people I read right either.

Since the discussion is going the way it is, and you are getting all technical yourself, I do not see the need for me to comment off the cuff, then you ask me to fill in some holes in that if I can, and someone else interjects, and we are off topic. That article from CNN only makes a point, and that is the strongest point that has been made by an expert I believe has the correct view, or closest to correct.

I also know I stand against almost every single thing Paul Krugman has to say. He just has a different theory, one which I would only argue at it's core. It's too hard to argue against him in his area of his expertise, not when my area is more knowledgable based under completely different theories (like free markets).

The bottom line is, my overall response that was covered with a copy pasta, is that the trust fund is funny money. It's been spent on other things. It's only there on paper. Paper always reverts to it's intrinsic value....zero. I mean, what if our currency changes? The green back is already changed given the peach and blue and red colors on them now...getting us to to the idea. brilliant idea.

The copy and paste instead of a link is so that everyone else can see it

[Aradhus]

Fraud pertaining to social security?

Why dont you try this. Tell me why it isn't a pyramid scam? It's called debate. Go ahead, make your case.

Pyramid strategies ARE a fraud, SS is a pyramid. if you disagree, then show some examples why a pyramid scam isn't a fraud and attempt to edify the wonderful Pyramid scam and it's history.

First you claimed SS was a ponzi scheme, provided no evidence for that claim. Then changed it to a pyramid scam. Ponzi scheme, pyramid scam, not the same thing.

The onus is on you to prove your claims that ss is fraudulent, you have failed to do so.

Also, Thomas Sowell is an outrageous Idealogue, partisan whack. He is not an honest actor. He cherrypicks information that validates his ideology, and ignores information that discredits his ideology.

[Phatscotty]

Fraud pertaining to social security?

Why dont you try this. Tell me why it isn't a pyramid scam? It's called debate. Go ahead, make your case.

Pyramid strategies ARE a fraud, SS is a pyramid. if you disagree, then show some examples why a pyramid scam isn't a fraud and attempt to edify the wonderful Pyramid scam and it's history.

First you claimed SS was a ponzi scheme, provided no evidence for that claim. Then changed it to a pyramid scam. Ponzi scheme, pyramid scam, not the same thing.

The onus is on you to prove your claims that ss is fraudulent, you have failed to do so.

Also, Thomas Sowell is an outrageous Idealogue, partisan whack. He is not an honest actor. He cherrypicks information that validates his ideology, and ignores information that discredits his ideology.

It's ponzi scheme, and while not one dimensional (not a successful strategy for longevity....) a ponzi shceme's overall structure is.....a pyramid scam. The people who need the money (retirees) get it straight from the people who paid it yesterday. So long as the illusion seems sustainable, it's all good. Eventually, when we get down to say 1.8 workers supporting every retiree, in say oh, 2020, the game will be up. It's too bad humanity must keep making the same mistakes. Like moths to the light, over and over again, straight for it mate!

[GreecePwns]

You are questioning Thomas Sowell now?

---

I'm sorry but I have a problem with someone who insists Obama giving speeches to kids about staying in school is similar to Hitler Youth. I have a problem with someone who insists the Democrats are planning Rwanda-like slaughters. This same calls for empirical evidence in debates yet believes this shit? This man is a partisan hack if there ever was one.

The bottom line is, my overall response that was covered with a copy pasta, is that the trust fund is funny money. It's been spent on other things. It's only there on paper. Paper always reverts to it's intrinsic value....zero. I mean, what if our currency changes? The green back is already changed given the peach and blue and red colors on them now...getting us to to the idea. brilliant idea.

What if this? What if that? Where's your emirical evidence here? Here's some. The government has never gone back on it's promise to pay. The Administration has presented the government with nearly 100 ways to fix the system. The trust fund continues to grow on the interest on the bonds (which have some worth, no matter what this hack tries to imply).

[Phatscotty]

Do you ever recall the issue of "putting a lock box" on the social security trust fund? If so, does that fit with politicians raiding it? if not, why the lock box? just politics again?