Cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security? (solutions, retirement, money, federal government)

[Dale Cooper]

Originally Posted by Goodnight

No medicare and SS are not entitlements as narrowly defined since people pay in but there is a shortfall in both. Both are underfunded, so was paid into the system is not covering the costs at this point and it will get worse. Medicare costs are increasing rapidly and social security should have either increased donations or reduced benefits years ago, increasing the payrool tax was step in the right direction.

So the point is that taxpayers are picking up the tab for both of these programs, call it entitelment or whatever you want, other taxpayers are picking up the tab for the seniors.

So what? Is it my concern if my insurance company is running in the red? No. As long as I pay my premium, I'm covered. If they have to pay out, other insureds pick up the tab. So what? It's not my concern. As long as I pay my premium, I'm covered.

SS is no different. SS and Medicare are no more entitements than your State Farm Insurance policy. If State Farm squanders your money, it's their problem, not yours.

Originally Posted by Fox Terrier

Of course, to YOU because YOU are already retired.

And your point is?????????

They raised the age limit while I was still paying and fairly young. Did I **** and moan about it? Nope. Why are you?

Originally Posted by HappyFather

I laugh every time I hear about cutting Social Securtiy, Medicare, Medicade, and every other program. Go ahead and cut, cut, cut away dumb asses. I Laugh at all these old fart republicans who Vote for these cuts. They are just shooting themselves in the foot. There is a huge amount of the population that are starting to retire, if not already retired. These are the people who will be directly affected by this. So go ahead republicans, cut all the money for your core voters. Let's see how long this will last. These old baby boomers who vote republican are really voting against their best interest. I am amazed how the GOP has brain washed their core voters, really, I am. If these cuts go into effect, I smell a very angry population.

My God! Are you really that uninformed? Ever heard of the grandfather clause? Guess not.

Duh! Research will bode you well. It's sorely lacking as of now.

Originally Posted by aneftp

The American public is very hypocritical with entitlement programs. Some (tea party members for example) are against entitlements but when directly asked about medicare, 70% oppose medicare cuts.

This is what I mean when I say no matter how many times it's explained, libbies just flat don't have the brainpower to get it. They continue to float through their haze of life not understanding that medicare is not free.

Again, Thank You, God, for giving me a working brain.

[jmking]

Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD

No doubt that not living among filth helped the monarchs. Many of them died early as well though. I see people in their 50s, daily, who get cardiac stents put in emergently who would have been dead 30 years ago because the technology was not available. Then they can go on to live another 10 years and get cancer or something else, but that stent just added 10 years onto their life. Heart disease is still the leading cause of death, but people are living much longer with it, and we keep getting better at treating it. Same with cancer. There are many cancers that used to be a death sentence that are treatable now. And more to come in the future. It is usually not big earth shattering breakthroughs, but small advances over time.

I dont know who is claiming we live beyond our genetic makeup. A more accurate statement is that most of us dont live up to the potential of our genetic makeup. If a handfull of humans can live to be 115, what is stopping the rest of us? And as long as we are talking about genetics, the biggest medical breakthroughs are and will continue to be in genetics. We have already isolated genes that affect aging. We have altered aging in animals by several methods. Mitochondrial manipulation, altering cell death cycles, etc. The possibilities are endless.

I hope those possibilities happen but I'm not holding my breath.

[padcrasher]

Originally Posted by whogo

The Democrats are not saying that. Obama has made no proposals to fully fund Medicare and partially defunded SS for two years.

The unfunded liabilities of Medicare make our national debt look insignificant.

In four years the liberals hero has done nothing to shore up Medicare and has reduced money going into SS. The liberals would be screaming if GW had cut payments into SS.

I didn't vote for Obama so I don't have any responsibility for what he does or doesn't do.

[Goodnight]

Originally Posted by Dale Cooper

So what? Is it my concern if my insurance company is running in the red? No. As long as I pay my premium, I'm covered. If they have to pay out, other insureds pick up the tab. So what? It's not my concern. As long as I pay my premium, I'm covered.

SS is no different. SS and Medicare are no more entitements than your State Farm Insurance policy. If State Farm squanders your money, it's their problem, not yours.

Well if your insurance company had a shortfall they would raise rates, increase deductible, far be it from your politicians to take similar fiscal responsibility, they might not be reelected. There is no denying both medicare and SS are in the red, people are living longer, health care costs are escalating and the population is aging. They knew for over a decade that the numbers were off, yet they never cut payouts or increased donations, they want voters to know that they can have their cake and eat it too.

The politicians are a reflection of what the voters are, immature and naive, no one wants to hear bad news. If they really cared they would have instituted the professional recommendations in Sympson-Bolles, they did nothing but what else is new, hire experts and then just ignore them.

The bottom line is that young taxpayers will be paying for your shortfalls with interest, you got a great deal they did not.

[Dale Cooper]

You're right, Goodnight, and that's pretty much what I said. When a tornado or hurricane or whatever blows through, everybody pays via higher premiums.

There was actually a time I was much more socially and fiscally liberal. Not these days. I'm so sick of people whining and sucking the teat that I no longer care. My tax dollars are depleted. I've got myself set up now so I pay only for myself. Debt free, enough to live happily on, supporting my hobbies, but not enough to worry about paying tax. Life is good.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

Programs are funded with tax revenue. Please tell me you knew that.

Anyway, if you can't answer my simple question don't reply.

The programs are not collecting sufficient tax revenues to sustain them over the short term. Apparently you didn't know that.

Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310

With revenue increase... Once we dig completely out of the Bush recession tax revenue will increase...

The recession ended 4 years ago, but if you're expecting your employment levels to return to the way they were, they won't.

Originally Posted by AnnieA

I do not understand why, after seniors have been demonized so much, the payroll tax on SS was reduced for the period of time that it was. All of the wailing has been about not having money to fund SS so, they reduce the tax on it.....HELLO ! Stupid, stupid !

Obama is an incompetent topah.

In any event, you misunderstood the FICA Fiasco. Yes, the FICA payroll tax was temporarily reduced 2%, however the government reimbursed the 2% to the Social Security Administration out of the General Fund.

You lost money on that deal.

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

I guess you think that Social Security and Medicare are both entitlements.

Originally Posted by Goodnight

No medicare and SS are not entitlements...

42 USC § 402 - Old-age and survivors insurance benefit payments

(a) Old-age insurance benefits Every individual who—
(1) is a fully insured individual (as defined in section 414 (a) of this title),
(2) has attained age 62, and
(3) has filed application for old-age insurance benefits or was entitled to disability insurance benefits for the month preceding the month in which he attained retirement age (as defined in section 416 (l) of this title), shall be entitled to an old-age insurance benefit for each month, beginning with—

entitled past participle, past tense of en·ti·tle (Verb)

Verb

• Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.
• Give (something, esp. a text or work of art) a particular title.

I would properly instruct the both of you on the proper use of a dictionary, but I'm short on time.

Originally Posted by malamute

One problem with social security is that while many people work 50 or more years and pay in huge amounts, all that is required is to work and pay in a mere 10 years. Imagine that!!! Pay in a minimal amount for only 10 short years and you're in.

And what's your point?

Are you suggesting that anyone who works 40 quarters -- 10 years -- receives a minimum monthly benefit?

Well, I suppose you're right, but don't forget that the minimum monthly benefit is $1.

Yes, One US Dollar.

Would you like a sedative?

Originally Posted by Fox Terrier

I thought the SS benefit monthly amount was based on the amount of earnings accrued over the years.

Well, you thought wrong.

Do you know how to calculate your monthly benefit? This is the formula (singular)....

To compute PIA: (1) 90% of AIME below the first bend point; plus (2) 32% of AIME in excess of the first bend point but not in excess of the second; plus (3) 15% of AIME in excess of the second bend point.

The first bend point changes annually. It is currently $767 but is projected to increase to $792 for 2013.

Step #1: Get your print-out from SSA showing your earnings.
Step #2: Adjust your earnings to the Wage Index. That converts all of your earnings to Year 20NN Dollars. Suppose you made $9,259 in 1982. The Wage Index for 1982 is 2.9577 so then....

$9,259 * 2.9577 = $27,385 in 2012 Dollars (because the Wage Index is currently set to 2012).

Step #3: Take the 35 highest years (Social Security actually takes the 420 highest months) and average them.

1981 13,203
1982 13,972
1983 14,698
1984 15,610
1985 16,324
1986 16,860
1987 17,989
1988 18,932
1989 19,741
1990 20,715
------------------
Total $168,044

Now, divide by 35

$168,044 / 35 = $4,801

Problem? This person only worked 10 years? Yeah, so what? You divide by 35.

Now we take $4,801 and divide by 12 to get $400.10 rounded down to $400.

That is the average monthly earning.

Step #4: You get 90% of $400 or $360

Step #5: You get 32% of the of the amount greater than the 1st Bend Point of $767, but less than the 2nd Bend Point of $4,624 so....

$0 * 32% = $0

Add that to your 1st AIME: $360 + $0 = $360

Step #6: You get 15% in excess of the 2nd Bend Point of $4,624 so...

$0 * 15% = $0

Add that.....$360 + $0 = $360

And so there's your monthly Social Security benefit: $360/month.....party on.

Suppose someone worked for 20 years. You still divide by 35 because you are averaging the highest 35 years including the years they don't work, regardless of the reason they do not work (excepting those on Social Security Disability). So we divide by 35 and come up with $1,000.

1] you get 90% up to the first bend point of $767, or......$717.30

2] you get 32% of the amount over $767, but less than the 2nd bend point of $4,624.

$1,000 - $767 = $233 * 32% = $74.56 + $717.30 = $792 per month as a benefit.

Note that someone who has never earned more than minimum wage, and worked 40 hours per week for 35 years will receive $763/month at present.

Let's say someone had average monthly earnings of $4,000 per month.....

1] you get 90% up to the first bend point of $767, or......$717.30

2] you get 32% of the amount over $767, but less than the 2nd bend point of $4,624.

$4,000 - $767 = $3,233 * 32% = $1034.56 + $717.30 = $1,752/month.

Let's say someone had average monthly earnings of $6,000 per month....

1] you get 90% up to the first bend point of $767, or......$717.30

2] you get 32% of the amount over $767, but less than the 2nd bend point of $4,624.

$4,624 - $767 = $3,857 * 32% = $1234.24 + $717.30 = $1951.54

3] you get 15% in excess of the 2nd bend point....

$6,000 - $4,624 = $1,376 * 15% = $206.4 + $1,951.54 = $2,158

The maximum monthly benefit is $2,513. Just eye-balling it, if you earn more than $85,000 per year then you might be able to possibly make an argument that you are subsidizing low class people. I mean low income people (sorry).

I have available, for just $34.95 plus Shipping & Handling charged to your credit card in 3 easy installments, The Black Heart Subsidy Medal, complete with automatic enrollment in the Order of the Black Heart. This unique accoutrement is hand-crafted in Hunan Province China, by skilled artisans who are survivors of the Boxer Rebellion, and will make a stunningly fashionable statement on any outer-garment, letting everyone know you Subsidize.

If you order within the next 24 hours you will also receive the "I Survived the Return of the Debt Ceiling Crisis" ball cap, an "I Ain't Got No Social Security" coffee mug, a "Cover-Up Benghazi Now" lapel pin, an "Obmaney Raised My Taxes And All I Got Was A Drone Attack" t-shirt.

Plus as an extra special bonus, you will receive free your copy of the "Citizen's Guide to Practicing Safe Subsidy" video available on DVD and Blu-Ray and approved by the US Departments of Education, Health & Human Services, and Homeland Security.

Those who take early retirement at age 62 never get 100% of their calculated benefits. Those born after 1960 who retire at 62 only get 70% of their calculated benefits for the rest of their lives (and their spouse only gets 35% of the benefits).

Glad we got that straightened out.

Originally Posted by malamute

Obviously those who paid in for over 40 years and had good incomes are not going to get what they could have gotten from a private retirement plan. They will not get anything close to what they should have gotten.

So?

Social Security is an insurance plan.

We don't put the cart before the horse, we don't count our chicks before they hatch, and we don't keep all of our eggs in one basket. We have an employer-based retirement scheme, our own personal retirement savings, and then Social Security as a back-up/insurance plan to provide basic subsistence income in case our employer plan or personal savings plan craps out.

That's just common sense.

All these people keep saying, "Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda" but in the end, they got nothing to show for it. All these "financial wizard geniuses" and all they do is cry "if it wasn't for Social Security." Well, if they were as smart as they claim they are, they could pay into Social Security and still reap $1 Million from their personal retirement investment plans.

BOSTON – Fidelity Investments®, the nation’s largest1 401(k) provider, today announced the average 401(k) balance reached $75,900...

Gosh....just like at all the freaking financial geniuses.

Not impressed...

Mircea

Originally Posted by jmking

Nationalized health care systems do it all the time? The US rations care more than any nation on earth with its current system, and you should know this.

You should now the proper definition of rationing, but you obviously don't.

Originally Posted by MTAtech

So, this conservative Republican wants death panels.

So do you. You want a universal health care system, like Europe, well they have death panels.

Originally Posted by MTAtech

The reality is that if one wants to reduce Medicare costs the best way is to reduce medical costs, which have the same effect on private insurance. The best way to reduce those costs and provide better medical care is to institute single-payer universal health insurance -- just as other advanced countries have done with great success.

They haven't done it with success.

I'll let the German Minister of Health explain it to you.....

"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)

Health expenditures are one of the main expenditures of every country. Figure 10 shows health
expenditures as a percentage of the countries’ national income in 2006.
• In Romania, health expenditure amounts to 5% of GDP and in Poland 6,6%
• The Romanian expenditure levels are only half of those of Britain, Italy, Spain and Sweden
• In Austria and Switzerland almost 1 in every 10 Euros flows into the healthcare sector.

That chart shows Sweden spending a tad over 9% of GDP on health care.

Figure 10: Health Expenditure as % of GDP, Source: Eurostat
Eurostat - Data Explorer

Sweden's 2011 GDP was $538.13 Billion with a population of 9,453,000 which works out to $5,122 per person annually.

For those who still don't get it, the fact that you spend less does not mean it costs less....it just means you spent less.

Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD

Thats the point. You are not supposed to collect. When social security was created they picked age 65 because most people didn't live to age 65. Life expectancy was around 60 back then. I'm not on a high horse. That is the way the system was designed, and it worked very well that way. But much like the AMT, it was never indexed, so now it has become something that it was never intended to be. 10-20 was supposed to be the outliers and now it is the norm. Unless we start raising the age, 40 years will no longer be the outliers. They will eventually be the norm.

You're a doctor? You ought to seriously consider giving your license back. You couldn't be more wrong. I don't know where you got your wild ideas, but you certainly didn't get them from any reputable source.

As any competent person knows, the correct and proper metric is life-expectancy from age 65.

To prove you wrong, I submit as evidence Table V.A1.—Principal Demographic Assumptions, Calendar Years 1940-2090, showing that in 1940 there were 9,569 people over age 65 for each 100,000 Americans. As of 2011, there were 4,575 persons age 65 or older per 100,000 Americans.

That's about 50% less.

Next to prove you wrong, I give you Table V.A3.—Period Life Expectancy which demonstrates two points to debunk your very false claims.

First, the correct and proper metric is life-expectancy age 65 and older, not life-expectancy from birth. And secondly, everyone can plainly see that in 1940 the life-expectancy over age 65 for a male was 11.9 years, and that in 2011 the life-expectancy was 17.7 years.

For those who don't get it, the metric we are examining is how long does a person live once they reach age 65: so 11.9 years means one lives until age 76.9 years and 17.7 means once lives to age 82.7 years.

What is the difference between 82.7 and 76.9 years?

5.8 years.

There you go. I just destroyed the idiotic "raise the age" stupidity. That was already factored into the equation when they started Social Security, and when they first raise the FICA tax rate from 1% to 1.5% in 1949, they re-examined it in light of Penicillin and other medical advances, such as additional antibiotics.

The mistake they made is not planning on population growth to decline. They assumed population growth to be relatively static and that there would always be 20 workers for each retiree on Social Security. Nobody realized or understood that affluence leads to a decline in population growth. By the time the Ford Commission comes round in the 1970s, they'd pretty much figured that out.

People want to know why I'm vehemently against raising the age, now you know why, because it is not statistically significant, not to mention the fact that you will be negatively impacted. The only thing that will happens is you will force more people into taking early retirement at age 62 with reduced benefits or going on Social Security Disability at an earlier age drawing 100% of their benefits before converting their OADI benefit into the OASI benefit.

The life-expectancy for women at age 65 was 13.4 years in 1940 (a total of 78.4 years) and 20 years in 2011 (a total of 85 years), so the life-expectancy of women has increased by 6.6 years.

By the way you can find that information on Pages 92 and 98 of the 2012 Social Security Report......which apparently very few of you have even bothered to read --- yet you all flap your lips.

And another reason, in 1935 there were 30 States in the US that had a social security-like retirement program or pension plan (before FDR nationalized all of the State retirement plans). Many States set retirement at age 70, but others at age 65. The Railroad Retirement Act in the early-1930s chose age 65 as well.

Why?

Because actuarial studies showed age 65 to provide a well-managed system. If you review the legislative history of Social Security you'll see that life-expectancy from birth was never a factor.

As an MD you should know that, and the reason why. Did they have Penicillin in 1935 when Social Security was enacted? No, sorry, wrong answer....it would be another 10 years before Penicillin was available to Americans, and Penicillin did much to reduce infant mortality, and infant mortality is the reason no one in the right mind would have looked at life-expectancy from birth.

Originally Posted by jmking

The age was 62 not 65.

It was always age 65 for 100% retirement benefits. Age 62 was early retirement with benefits permanently reduced by 25%.

For those whose normal retirement is 67 years for 100% benefits (those born 1960 and later) can retire early at 62 with a permanent 35% reduction.

For everyone in between 65 and 67 years, if you retire early at 62 years your benefits are permanently reduced on a sliding scale between 25% and 35%.

Originally Posted by jmking

Human beings live no longer now than they did 50,000 years ago. This mumbo jumbo propaganda about humans living longer has gotten so out of control some folks think by the year 2050 we will be living for 150 years. More humans now are able to survive to old age than in the past that is the difference.

You started out good then failed. Yes, for thousands and thousands of years the mean life-span was 35 years, but median life-span has always been 75+ years. Infant Mortality Rate. Once you survived past infancy, you could expect to live to 75 or older.

Originally Posted by jmking

Things where so barbaric for the elderly and the young for that matter pre SS that they were not expected to live to 60. Give them a benefit and they will, so they did, so what is the problem?

Another fail.

Things were not "barbaric." At the time FDR nationalized Social Security, 30 States had pension/social security plans for their ordinary citizens. You think FDR invented Social Security? Hell, no, when was governor of New York State he copied Social Social Security from another State and started it up in New York.

And Social Security did not allow people to live longer. Printosil allowed people to live longer. That was a sulfa drug used as an "antibiotic." Penicillin wasn't available to every American until 1946, and then from the late 1940s to the mid-1950s, Streptomycin, Terramycin and Chloromycetin were developed tested and approved for use by the FDA.

You're really weak on your history.

Originally Posted by jmking

Raise the damn cap on SS ...

...will fund Social Security for 1 Month.

Somebody misled you big-time.

I'm not saying that you should or shouldn't raise the wage/salary cap for Social Security, I'm just saying it is not the MAGIC SILVER BULLET.

And it will only pay for 1 Month for a few more months and then it will only pay for 3 weeks and so on until about 2018 or so when it barely pays for 1 week.

It will help to extend the life of the OASDI Trust Fund from 2023-2024 to 2024-2025 so you [might] buy 1 year of time before your benefits are cut 28%-32%.

The damage to your economy will be mild to moderate. When you raise the FICA tax rate, the damage to your economy will be moderate to severe depending when they raise the FICA rate and how much they raise it. The idiot Obama screwed you all. Instead of giving a 2% temporary FICA tax cut he should have raised the FICA rate by at least 1.5%.

I'm in the process now of figuring out how many jobs you're going to lose. Pretty much looks like permanent 9%-10% unemployment from then on out.

Historically....

Mircea

[jmking]

Originally Posted by Mircea

The programs are not collecting sufficient tax revenues to sustain them over the short term. Apparently you didn't know that.



The recession ended 4 years ago, but if you're expecting your employment levels to return to the way they were, they won't.



Obama is an incompetent topah.

In any event, you misunderstood the FICA Fiasco. Yes, the FICA payroll tax was temporarily reduced 2%, however the government reimbursed the 2% to the Social Security Administration out of the General Fund.

You lost money on that deal.





42 USC § 402 - Old-age and survivors insurance benefit payments

(a) Old-age insurance benefits Every individual who—
(1) is a fully insured individual (as defined in section 414 (a) of this title),
(2) has attained age 62, and
(3) has filed application for old-age insurance benefits or was entitled to disability insurance benefits for the month preceding the month in which he attained retirement age (as defined in section 416 (l) of this title), shall be entitled to an old-age insurance benefit for each month, beginning with—

entitled past participle, past tense of en·ti·tle (Verb)

Verb

• Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.
• Give (something, esp. a text or work of art) a particular title.

I would properly instruct the both of you on the proper use of a dictionary, but I'm short on time.



And what's your point?

Are you suggesting that anyone who works 40 quarters -- 10 years -- receives a minimum monthly benefit?

Well, I suppose you're right, but don't forget that the minimum monthly benefit is $1.

Yes, One US Dollar.

Would you like a sedative?



Well, you thought wrong.

Do you know how to calculate your monthly benefit? This is the formula (singular)....

To compute PIA: (1) 90% of AIME below the first bend point; plus (2) 32% of AIME in excess of the first bend point but not in excess of the second; plus (3) 15% of AIME in excess of the second bend point.

The first bend point changes annually. It is currently $767 but is projected to increase to $792 for 2013.

Step #1: Get your print-out from SSA showing your earnings.
Step #2: Adjust your earnings to the Wage Index. That converts all of your earnings to Year 20NN Dollars. Suppose you made $9,259 in 1982. The Wage Index for 1982 is 2.9577 so then....

$9,259 * 2.9577 = $27,385 in 2012 Dollars (because the Wage Index is currently set to 2012).

Step #3: Take the 35 highest years (Social Security actually takes the 420 highest months) and average them.

1981 13,203
1982 13,972
1983 14,698
1984 15,610
1985 16,324
1986 16,860
1987 17,989
1988 18,932
1989 19,741
1990 20,715
------------------
Total $168,044

Now, divide by 35

$168,044 / 35 = $4,801

Problem? This person only worked 10 years? Yeah, so what? You divide by 35.

Now we take $4,801 and divide by 12 to get $400.10 rounded down to $400.

That is the average monthly earning.

Step #4: You get 90% of $400 or $360

Step #5: You get 32% of the of the amount greater than the 1st Bend Point of $767, but less than the 2nd Bend Point of $4,624 so....

$0 * 32% = $0

Add that to your 1st AIME: $360 + $0 = $360

Step #6: You get 15% in excess of the 2nd Bend Point of $4,624 so...

$0 * 15% = $0

Add that.....$360 + $0 = $360

And so there's your monthly Social Security benefit: $360/month.....party on.

Suppose someone worked for 20 years. You still divide by 35 because you are averaging the highest 35 years including the years they don't work, regardless of the reason they do not work (excepting those on Social Security Disability). So we divide by 35 and come up with $1,000.

1] you get 90% up to the first bend point of $767, or......$717.30

2] you get 32% of the amount over $767, but less than the 2nd bend point of $4,624.

$1,000 - $767 = $233 * 32% = $74.56 + $717.30 = $792 per month as a benefit.

Note that someone who has never earned more than minimum wage, and worked 40 hours per week for 35 years will receive $763/month at present.

Let's say someone had average monthly earnings of $4,000 per month.....

1] you get 90% up to the first bend point of $767, or......$717.30

2] you get 32% of the amount over $767, but less than the 2nd bend point of $4,624.

$4,000 - $767 = $3,233 * 32% = $1034.56 + $717.30 = $1,752/month.

Let's say someone had average monthly earnings of $6,000 per month....

1] you get 90% up to the first bend point of $767, or......$717.30

2] you get 32% of the amount over $767, but less than the 2nd bend point of $4,624.

$4,624 - $767 = $3,857 * 32% = $1234.24 + $717.30 = $1951.54

3] you get 15% in excess of the 2nd bend point....

$6,000 - $4,624 = $1,376 * 15% = $206.4 + $1,951.54 = $2,158

The maximum monthly benefit is $2,513. Just eye-balling it, if you earn more than $85,000 per year then you might be able to possibly make an argument that you are subsidizing low class people. I mean low income people (sorry).

I have available, for just $34.95 plus Shipping & Handling charged to your credit card in 3 easy installments, The Black Heart Subsidy Medal, complete with automatic enrollment in the Order of the Black Heart. This unique accoutrement is hand-crafted in Hunan Province China, by skilled artisans who are survivors of the Boxer Rebellion, and will make a stunningly fashionable statement on any outer-garment, letting everyone know you Subsidize.

If you order within the next 24 hours you will also receive the "I Survived the Return of the Debt Ceiling Crisis" ball cap, an "I Ain't Got No Social Security" coffee mug, a "Cover-Up Benghazi Now" lapel pin, an "Obmaney Raised My Taxes And All I Got Was A Drone Attack" t-shirt.

Plus as an extra special bonus, you will receive free your copy of the "Citizen's Guide to Practicing Safe Subsidy" video available on DVD and Blu-Ray and approved by the US Departments of Education, Health & Human Services, and Homeland Security.

Those who take early retirement at age 62 never get 100% of their calculated benefits. Those born after 1960 who retire at 62 only get 70% of their calculated benefits for the rest of their lives (and their spouse only gets 35% of the benefits).

Glad we got that straightened out.



So?

Social Security is an insurance plan.

We don't put the cart before the horse, we don't count our chicks before they hatch, and we don't keep all of our eggs in one basket. We have an employer-based retirement scheme, our own personal retirement savings, and then Social Security as a back-up/insurance plan to provide basic subsistence income in case our employer plan or personal savings plan craps out.

That's just common sense.

All these people keep saying, "Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda" but in the end, they got nothing to show for it. All these "financial wizard geniuses" and all they do is cry "if it wasn't for Social Security." Well, if they were as smart as they claim they are, they could pay into Social Security and still reap $1 Million from their personal retirement investment plans.

BOSTON – Fidelity Investments®, the nation’s largest1 401(k) provider, today announced the average 401(k) balance reached $75,900...

Gosh....just like at all the freaking financial geniuses.

Not impressed...

Mircea



You should now the proper definition of rationing, but you obviously don't.



So do you. You want a universal health care system, like Europe, well they have death panels.



They haven't done it with success.

I'll let the German Minister of Health explain it to you.....

"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)

Health expenditures are one of the main expenditures of every country. Figure 10 shows health
expenditures as a percentage of the countries’ national income in 2006.
• In Romania, health expenditure amounts to 5% of GDP and in Poland 6,6%
• The Romanian expenditure levels are only half of those of Britain, Italy, Spain and Sweden
• In Austria and Switzerland almost 1 in every 10 Euros flows into the healthcare sector.

That chart shows Sweden spending a tad over 9% of GDP on health care.

Figure 10: Health Expenditure as % of GDP, Source: Eurostat
Eurostat - Data Explorer

Sweden's 2011 GDP was $538.13 Billion with a population of 9,453,000 which works out to $5,122 per person annually.

For those who still don't get it, the fact that you spend less does not mean it costs less....it just means you spent less.



You're a doctor? You ought to seriously consider giving your license back. You couldn't be more wrong. I don't know where you got your wild ideas, but you certainly didn't get them from any reputable source.

As any competent person knows, the correct and proper metric is life-expectancy from age 65.

To prove you wrong, I submit as evidence Table V.A1.—Principal Demographic Assumptions, Calendar Years 1940-2090, showing that in 1940 there were 9,569 people over age 65 for each 100,000 Americans. As of 2011, there were 4,575 persons age 65 or older per 100,000 Americans.

That's about 50% less.

Next to prove you wrong, I give you Table V.A3.—Period Life Expectancy which demonstrates two points to debunk your very false claims.

First, the correct and proper metric is life-expectancy age 65 and older, not life-expectancy from birth. And secondly, everyone can plainly see that in 1940 the life-expectancy over age 65 for a male was 11.9 years, and that in 2011 the life-expectancy was 17.7 years.

For those who don't get it, the metric we are examining is how long does a person live once they reach age 65: so 11.9 years means one lives until age 76.9 years and 17.7 means once lives to age 82.7 years.

What is the difference between 82.7 and 76.9 years?

5.8 years.

There you go. I just destroyed the idiotic "raise the age" stupidity. That was already factored into the equation when they started Social Security, and when they first raise the FICA tax rate from 1% to 1.5% in 1949, they re-examined it in light of Penicillin and other medical advances, such as additional antibiotics.

The mistake they made is not planning on population growth to decline. They assumed population growth to be relatively static and that there would always be 20 workers for each retiree on Social Security. Nobody realized or understood that affluence leads to a decline in population growth. By the time the Ford Commission comes round in the 1970s, they'd pretty much figured that out.

People want to know why I'm vehemently against raising the age, now you know why, because it is not statistically significant, not to mention the fact that you will be negatively impacted. The only thing that will happens is you will force more people into taking early retirement at age 62 with reduced benefits or going on Social Security Disability at an earlier age drawing 100% of their benefits before converting their OADI benefit into the OASI benefit.

The life-expectancy for women at age 65 was 13.4 years in 1940 (a total of 78.4 years) and 20 years in 2011 (a total of 85 years), so the life-expectancy of women has increased by 6.6 years.

By the way you can find that information on Pages 92 and 98 of the 2012 Social Security Report......which apparently very few of you have even bothered to read --- yet you all flap your lips.

And another reason, in 1935 there were 30 States in the US that had a social security-like retirement program or pension plan (before FDR nationalized all of the State retirement plans). Many States set retirement at age 70, but others at age 65. The Railroad Retirement Act in the early-1930s chose age 65 as well.

Why?

Because actuarial studies showed age 65 to provide a well-managed system. If you review the legislative history of Social Security you'll see that life-expectancy from birth was never a factor.

As an MD you should know that, and the reason why. Did they have Penicillin in 1935 when Social Security was enacted? No, sorry, wrong answer....it would be another 10 years before Penicillin was available to Americans, and Penicillin did much to reduce infant mortality, and infant mortality is the reason no one in the right mind would have looked at life-expectancy from birth.



It was always age 65 for 100% retirement benefits. Age 62 was early retirement with benefits permanently reduced by 25%.

For those whose normal retirement is 67 years for 100% benefits (those born 1960 and later) can retire early at 62 with a permanent 35% reduction.

For everyone in between 65 and 67 years, if you retire early at 62 years your benefits are permanently reduced on a sliding scale between 25% and 35%.



You started out good then failed. Yes, for thousands and thousands of years the mean life-span was 35 years, but median life-span has always been 75+ years. Infant Mortality Rate. Once you survived past infancy, you could expect to live to 75 or older.



Another fail.

Things were not "barbaric." At the time FDR nationalized Social Security, 30 States had pension/social security plans for their ordinary citizens. You think FDR invented Social Security? Hell, no, when was governor of New York State he copied Social Social Security from another State and started it up in New York.

And Social Security did not allow people to live longer. Printosil allowed people to live longer. That was a sulfa drug used as an "antibiotic." Penicillin wasn't available to every American until 1946, and then from the late 1940s to the mid-1950s, Streptomycin, Terramycin and Chloromycetin were developed tested and approved for use by the FDA.

You're really weak on your history.



...will fund Social Security for 1 Month.

Somebody misled you big-time.

I'm not saying that you should or shouldn't raise the wage/salary cap for Social Security, I'm just saying it is not the MAGIC SILVER BULLET.

And it will only pay for 1 Month for a few more months and then it will only pay for 3 weeks and so on until about 2018 or so when it barely pays for 1 week.

It will help to extend the life of the OASDI Trust Fund from 2023-2024 to 2024-2025 so you [might] buy 1 year of time before your benefits are cut 28%-32%.

The damage to your economy will be mild to moderate. When you raise the FICA tax rate, the damage to your economy will be moderate to severe depending when they raise the FICA rate and how much they raise it. The idiot Obama screwed you all. Instead of giving a 2% temporary FICA tax cut he should have raised the FICA rate by at least 1.5%.

I'm in the process now of figuring out how many jobs you're going to lose. Pretty much looks like permanent 9%-10% unemployment from then on out.

Historically....

Mircea

Man, why don't write a book for crying out loud with all your copying and pasting. Yes I do know exactly what rationing is. If you can't see that with in our system then you are as blind as a bat. Do I have to cut and paste ten friggin pages to attempt to convince you how our system separates every one out from coverage? I'll give you an example that will go over your head. There is me, with HMO insurance coverage, there are 5 beds, the first bed is Medicare, although I pay a premium for this every week I'm not entitled to use it because I'm not retired or disabled. Then there is bed #2, Medicaid, I'm not entitled to it because I have assets, money and also work, but also pay taxes for this. Bed #3 VA, I'm not entitled because I'm not a veteran of a war. Bed #4 Indian Health, I'm not entitled because I'm not an American Indian. Then there is bed #5 BlueCross/BlueShield PPO, I'm not entitled to that coverage because I have UnitedHealthCare HMO which is chock full of roadblocks that prevent me from seeing doctors that are experts in my particular treatment, not in network. Medicines that are not covered, brand names that are more effective than generic. Co-pays and deductibles that may limit ones ability to get timely treatments. Caps and Certain insurance coverage many can not afford. And pre existing conditions that prevents coverage. High COBRA costs, ridiculously high HIPAA coverage costs and if a company closes its doors for what ever reason there is no COBRA coverage for that person ever.

I can go on and on but make no mistake it is rationing, the American way, and is meant to be exactly what it is, to prevent people from medical treatment.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

From wiki:

I suggest you go read the actual court cases, not wiki.
The "guardians of thought" on wiki often prevent politically incorrect corrections.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by cometclear

This is one of the fundamental reasons that I can deal with libertarians versus conservatives. Libertarians are usually up front about their intentions. Their ultimate goal is to destroy SS and Medicare because they don't believe in them. Conservatives, the cowardly pusses that they are, pretend that they want to "save" SS and Medicare, though they don't really believe in these programs.

"This is one of the fundamental reasons that I", don't take to serious many posters on here when they don't really want adult conversion. Anyone who has a different opinion is called juvenile gutter names because they ARE juvenile and classless.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by AnnieA

I do not understand why, after seniors have been demonized so much, the payroll tax on SS was reduced for the period of time that it was. All of the wailing has been about not having money to fund SS so, they reduce the tax on it.....HELLO ! Stupid, stupid !

I pay a drug premium every month that I don't use but for one drug because all of the others have become generics and I only pay $4.00 for each. The gov't is making a nice bundle off of me and several others that I know of. I have to use generics and Medicaid recipients, that do not pay a premium, can only use brand name drugs....go figure.

I pay for my Medicare coverage. But, the payments to the doctors is so low, I expect to stop having tests or others things offered in the very near future, if I manage to keep my doctor.

I agree that Repubs want to make the SS program and Medicare go away but, I also think the Dems aren't too far behind. Kind of makes me feel a little unloved and unwanted.....LOL.

"I agree that Repubs want to make the SS program and Medicare go away but" I agree but, you have only stated one half of the position most repubs have. We want them replaced with better systems.

It is really a damn shame that so many are quick to demonize others who really do care about the elderly and the truly needy.

The dems, IMO don't/won/t do anything to changed the existing systems to ensure the elderly and the truly needy will have a system in the future. They would rather demonize others opinions and let the current systems bankrupt the country and then WHAT will happen to the elderly and the truly needy?