How and why the right lies about Social Security - and the media repeat it

[Bateluer]

The video has Bernie Sanders commenting, listing three myths the right-wing spreads:

1. Social Security needs to raise the age of retirement


2. Social Security is going bankrupt


3. Social Security should be privatized

Craig, you're an idiot. I've stripped away all the extra crap for your post so I can comment on these three things specifically.

1: Raising the retirement age would do much to help SS solvency problem, but its only a slight stop gap.

2: Yes, it is actually bankrupt. It already pays out more than it takes in. Directly from my quarterly SS Statement, not from any right wing propaganda machine, right from the agency itself, they CANNOT continue to pay full benefits for decades. To meet their obligations, they'll have to reduce to ~724 dollars for every 1000 dollars they pay out now. So, basically, you lose about 30 cents for every dollar you invest into SS. Not much of an investment when the return is -30% right out of the gate.

3: God yes, private it immediately. Those evil Republicans tried to give you control of your retirement funds back in 2005. How dare they give you control. Their plan was pretty simple, same amount of money was going to be withheld from your paychecks, however, you got to choose which funds to invest in. Brilliant, eh? Rather than -30% return, you'd be able to invest in a long term growth fund that would probably easily average 6-10% over a couple decades. The main reason people like you railed against it? That people close to retirement age would have been royally hosed in the 2008 crisis. You just conveniently forgot that people that close to retirement, 45 years+ was the official age, I believe, were grandfathered in to the existing/current SS fund. They might have taken a hit to their retirement funds and might have had to work another few years to make up for it, in a worst case scenario. Instead, nothing was done, and the same broken system continues to dig its debt hole deeper and deeper, creating an even bigger problem and expanding it to more and more people.

Craig, you clearly have no sense of fiscal responsibility.

 

[Craig234]

From my last post that you didn't reply to:

Again I ask, why can't we provide Medicare for all with what we currently spend on Medicare? Correct me if I am wrong but using the per capita spending of other 1st world countries with similar UHC shouldn't just what we currently spend cover us all? If so I am all for it.

Your math is confused.

Public healthcare is far more cost-efficient than private.

Now, you can't just compare Medicare for the more expensive patients with Private for everyone. But Medicare for all is a lot cheaper than private for all.

Medicare for all would cover the people it now does, PLUS the rest of Americans.

So, why would the amount for PART of the US now cover ALL of the US? Are the majority of Americans not covered free?

What you should ask is whether the amount we spend on *healthcare* covers Medicare for all, and it does with a huge amount left over.

Added to this post:

If we can not do the above then how much more will "Medicare for all" cost us? I don't care who the money comes from just an actual dollar figure on how much Medicare for all will cost at the end of the day.

I don't have a figure, but it'll cost a lot less per person than it does now, but add a lot of people. It'll be a major savings for society, however that savings is distributed.

 

[Darwin333]

Your math is confused.

Public healthcare is far more cost-efficient than private.

Now, you can't just compare Medicare for the more expensive patients with Private for everyone. But Medicare for all is a lot cheaper than private for all.

Medicare for all would cover the people it now does, PLUS the rest of Americans.

So, why would the amount for PART of the US now cover ALL of the US? Are the majority of Americans not covered free?

What you should ask is whether the amount we spend on *healthcare* covers Medicare for all, and it does with a huge amount left over.



I don't have a figure, but it'll cost a lot less per person than it does now, but add a lot of people. It'll be a major savings for society, however that savings is distributed.

While I personally don't think this is a valid comparison its one that your side consistently uses. Other first world countries spend per capita to cover their entire population what we spend (per capita) to cover a fraction. Why is that?

And you darn sure can't expect anyone to get behind a plan like that without knowing the actual cost. The dirty little secret is that it isn't social security that is going to really bust us it is medicare.

 

[nick1985]

Anyone who thinks something taking in 80% of what its paying out isnt bankrupt is a fucking idiot.

 

[simpletron]

While I personally don't think this is a valid comparison its one that your side consistently uses. Other first world countries spend per capita to cover their entire population what we spend (per capita) to cover a fraction. Why is that?

And you darn sure can't expect anyone to get behind a plan like that without knowing the actual cost. The dirty little secret is that it isn't social security that is going to really bust us it is medicare.

Since craig seems confused here is data to back your claim.
http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34631_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html

In 2008, the US had the third highest public spending per capita, aka government healthcare spending/population(300+ million). While it should be noted that this all levels of government(federal, state, local), the federal government alone is little short of france/canada/UK total levels of spending.