Do you favor a medicare and social security sunset act?

[Anarchist420]

Read this: http://mises.org/daily/4595.

If you were born in 1988, or even before then, you'll be experiencing a negative return.

What the hell is the problem with raising the minimum age at which one can withdraw from Social Security to 77 and saying its all over starting with people born in 1960 or later?

The Federal deficit would be reduced, taxes would be lowered eventually, and people would have more money after they retire. Social security was a joke from the very beginning. You already paid income tax, then you pay some more tax and get an inflated amount back when you're older.

Medicare benefits ought to be reduced also. they need to lift the ban on imported drugs and force the drug companies to sell at lower prices to seniors. Then they can stop overpaying for scooters and other equipment. Most of these people have kids that can pay for them. If you make medical expenses tax deductable, then you can get rid of Medicare.

but none of this will happen under Obama because he's both a right wing socialist and a left-wing socialist. The left part of him makes him not reduce benefits and instead run of deficits and the right part of him makes him want to make big pharma even bigger by giving them more corporate welfare than they already receive via patents.

I'm stepping off the soap box. If the ballot box and jury box fail me again, then I'm going to be in D.C. defending my freedoms with the cartridge box if they don't show me some fiscal responsibility.

 

[SammyJr]

I don't see the solution as going back to the 1920s. If anything, Medicare should be expanded so it is THE Federal Government health insurance program - then we can get rid of the VA, SCHIP, and Tricare, and scale back Federal funding of Medicaid and the Federal Employee Health system. In our effort to avoid evil socialized Universal Health Care, we have developed a cluster fuck that costs much, much more.

I do think SS should be means tested and as dirty as the word is, it should be welfare for destitute old folks who couldn't/didn't save.

 

[DaveSimmons]

If the ballot box and jury box fail me again, then I'm going to be in D.C. defending my freedoms with the cartridge box if they don't show me some fiscal responsibility.

Now you're threatening to kill our elected officials if they don't cater to your whims?

Perhaps it's time to visit a mental health professional before the voices in your head convince you to become more than an Internet Tough Guy.

I do agree with your idea of repealing the 19th amendment though. Haven't they suffered enough?

 

[CrackRabbit]

I favor you not posting nonsense in P&N anymore.

All in favor?

 

[theeedude]

No, but I do favor lowering age of Medicare eligibility to birth.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is one. Benefits end when you die.

 

[Infohawk]

I favor you not posting nonsense in P&N anymore.

All in favor?

Maybe the Supreme Court should get involved? http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2097373

 

[Cogman]

I actually used to favor getting rid of social security, until I found out that it generates a surplus. So long as it makes enough money to support itself, I don't see SS as being a bad thing.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I actually used to favor getting rid of social security, until I found out that it generates a surplus. So long as it makes enough money to support itself, I don't see SS as being a bad thing.

Once the Death Panels start up, we can euthanize enough of the Boomers to keep the surplus going forever. This also will solve the Medicare problem.

 

[MovingTarget]

Not just no, but hell no. I do not want to go back to a time when being "in the poor house" was meant literally. SS enabled many seniors to continue living independently with greater dignity than ever before. Yes, I have to pay FICA....which will continue to rise, but I believe that is a fair trade-off to ensure that our elderly do not live in systematic poverty.

65 is high enough. For every older person that has to continue working out of necessity, that is one younger person who cannot advance in their career or even get their foot in the door for that first job experience in their field...and that is if it is even possible for many of them to physically work anymore. If you do your time in the workforce, you are entitled to sit back and go fishing if you like.

 

[nonlnear]

Yes I do. However I have no delusions about where this country is headed, so I am pursuing a career in DHHS. In a world where pensions will be insolvent and retiring boomers liquidating their 401(k)s are pushing the markets down, you can't beat the retirement plan of the federal government. I'll be the last rat off this ship.

 

[kranky]

65 is high enough. For every older person that has to continue working out of necessity, that is one younger person who cannot advance in their career or even get their foot in the door for that first job experience in their field...and that is if it is even possible for many of them to physically work anymore. If you do your time in the workforce, you are entitled to sit back and go fishing if you like.

Unfortunately, the math doesn't work when people work for 40-45 years then draw benefits for 25 more, plus cost-of-living increases. When Social Security was started, people weren't routinely living into their 80's and 90's. People didn't get sick, incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills, then live for another decade. You either got well pretty fast, or you died, in general.

You hear about state/local governments facing pension crises for the same reason except theirs is accelerated. They have people only working 30 years then drawing benefits for 30 or even longer, with full health coverage. Some of them can even "retire" to start collecting a pension, then go right back to work at the same job they already had and collect a full salary on top.

Don't know what the answer is but the system in place now cannot continue. Unless you have a group of people paying into the system that is much larger than the group receiving from the system, you're going to have trouble.

1950: 16 people paying into SS for each person collecting
2005: 3.3 people paying into SS for each person collecting

 

[Anarchist420]

Exactly, people are living way too long for 65 to be the retirement age. Too many people also don't understand that this can be done a lot more efficiently at the state level or that most seniors have off-spring who could take care of them.

I fear the Republican nominee in 2012 isn't even going to touch this issue and that they'll just go with the status quo. I doubt Sarah Palin or that fuckhead Mitt Romney even think that this is a problem.

 

[MovingTarget]

Unfortunately, the math doesn't work when people work for 40-45 years then draw benefits for 25 more, plus cost-of-living increases. When Social Security was started, people weren't routinely living into their 80's and 90's. People didn't get sick, incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills, then live for another decade. You either got well pretty fast, or you died, in general.

You hear about state/local governments facing pension crises for the same reason except theirs is accelerated. They have people only working 30 years then drawing benefits for 30 or even longer, with full health coverage. Some of them can even "retire" to start collecting a pension, then go right back to work at the same job they already had and collect a full salary on top.

Don't know what the answer is but the system in place now cannot continue. Unless you have a group of people paying into the system that is much larger than the group receiving from the system, you're going to have trouble.

1950: 16 people paying into SS for each person collecting
2005: 3.3 people paying into SS for each person collecting

You are correct. The math does not add up, which is why the problem needs to be corrected sooner rather than later. I know it is political suicide to even suggest this, but taxes need to go up for FICA. We need to stop diverting funds from this tax to the general fund. Gore may have been a broken record with his "lockbox" idea, but it is one of the few instances where he was dead on. Eliminating the SS cap on taxable income is another tool to use, but it treads on thin ice as SS was originally designed to be something you paid into via annuities and not an entitlement in the truest sense. Raising the retirement age does make the math work out better, but just because people are living longer doesn't mean that their working years are effectively being extended. I fear the human cost of doing so will be too high.

 

[Hacp]

You are correct. The math does not add up, which is why the problem needs to be corrected sooner rather than later. I know it is political suicide to even suggest this, but taxes need to go up for FICA. We need to stop diverting funds from this tax to the general fund. Gore may have been a broken record with his "lockbox" idea, but it is one of the few instances where he was dead on. Eliminating the SS cap on taxable income is another tool to use, but it treads on thin ice as SS was originally designed to be something you paid into via annuities and not an entitlement in the truest sense. Raising the retirement age does make the math work out better, but just because people are living longer doesn't mean that their working years are effectively being extended. I fear the human cost of doing so will be too high.

Taxes need to go up? WTF? You want to send more jobs to India and China? The solution is to raise the age of retirement right now to 75. Let it be retroactive, that is cancel the payout of anyone who previously was on SS. Then lower the SS tax and let people decide what to do with their own money.

 

[charrison]

You are correct. The math does not add up, which is why the problem needs to be corrected sooner rather than later. I know it is political suicide to even suggest this, but taxes need to go up for FICA. We need to stop diverting funds from this tax to the general fund. Gore may have been a broken record with his "lockbox" idea, but it is one of the few instances where he was dead on. Eliminating the SS cap on taxable income is another tool to use, but it treads on thin ice as SS was originally designed to be something you paid into via annuities and not an entitlement in the truest sense. Raising the retirement age does make the math work out better, but just because people are living longer doesn't mean that their working years are effectively being extended. I fear the human cost of doing so will be too high.

The problem is, he never discussed what the lock box looked like.

Does the lockbox consist of:

Taking surplus and buying govt bonds(what we have now).
Burying the surplus in a coffee can in the whitehouse back yard(a good way to remove money from the economy, a very bad idea)
Invest the surplus in the market(then you have the govt playing witht he market)


What did he mean by lockbox?

 

[First]

I favor a Sunset Act on your posts.

 

[heyheybooboo]

The problem is, he never discussed what the lock box looked like.

Does the lockbox consist of:

Taking surplus and buying govt bonds(what we have now).
Burying the surplus in a coffee can in the whitehouse back yard(a good way to remove money from the economy, a very bad idea)
Invest the surplus in the market(then you have the govt playing witht he market)


What did he mean by lockbox?

Funds generated over and above monthly outlays should be loaned to state and local gov'ts for infrastructure improvements.

Not only would that maintain the 'principle' and generate interest income, repayments would generate future cash flow to pay benefits (and/or be loaned back out).

Another benefit is that the public actually sees their tax dollars at work building up our national infrastructure instead of nation-building over-seas with our tax dollars.

I favor a Sunset Act on your posts.

Seconded.




--

 

[charrison]

Funds generated over and above monthly outlays should be loaned to state and local gov'ts for infrastructure improvements.

Not only would that maintain the 'principle' and generate interest income, repayments would generate future cash flow to pay benefits (and/or be loaned back out).

Another benefit is that the public actually sees their tax dollars at work building up our national infrastructure instead of nation-building over-seas with our tax dollars.

But how is that any different than what is happening today. Right now those surplus funds are being loaned to fed govt to be spent on federal, state and local project. Doing this changes nothing.

 

[Engineer]

But how is that any different than what is happening today. Right now those surplus funds are being loaned to fed govt to be spent on federal, state and local project. Doing this changes nothing.

Besides, this year the outgoing money is more than the incoming money so the idea wouldn't work anyway!

 

[charrison]

Besides, this year the outgoing money is more than the incoming money so the idea wouldn't work anyway!

True enough.

 

[Tom]

there isn't any social security issue. medicare funding won't be solved until we figure out how to cut all health care spending to the same level as other industrialized countries.

 

[drebo]

there isn't any social security issue. medicare funding won't be solved until we figure out how to cut all health care spending to the same level as other industrialized countries.

Getting rid of Medicare would be a good start. Let the market determine how much procedures and care should cost. Medicare is the reason procedures and care cost so much in the first place: it dictated prices that were not in line with existing market prices, causing ALL prices to go up.

Bring back doctor-patient negotiation. Let me and my doctor figure out how much something will cost. Why should anyone else have any say over that?

 

[Hacp]

Getting rid of Medicare would be a good start. Let the market determine how much procedures and care should cost. Medicare is the reason procedures and care cost so much in the first place: it dictated prices that were not in line with existing market prices, causing ALL prices to go up.

Bring back doctor-patient negotiation. Let me and my doctor figure out how much something will cost. Why should anyone else have any say over that?

And get rid of all that damn regulation. If my uncle wanted to perform surgery on me for free at his house, government shouldn't give a fuck.

 

[LtPage1]

.
What the hell is the problem with raising the minimum age at which one can withdraw from Social Security to 77 and saying its all over starting with people born in 1960 or later?

The Federal deficit would be reduced, taxes would be lowered eventually, and people would have more money after they retire... They need to lift the ban on imported drugs and force the drug companies to sell at lower prices to seniors. Then they can stop overpaying for scooters and other equipment.

This all makes sense to me. The rest of your post is full of crazy, however. People might listen to you more if you started paying attention to what you say; I mean, you actually used the phrase "right-wing socialist."