News, Social Security heading for insolvency even faster. (retirees, welfare, benefit)

[TuborgP]

Originally Posted by markg91359

You can make an an argument that any form of government taxation and spending is "redistribution of income". I don't get gooey-eyed over it at all. Our representatives that we elect and send to Congress make these decisions by a majority vote. Its the way our system functions.

Social Security is not a private retirement program that was intended to have options A through Z. Its not really a retirement program at all. Its a program that is set up to provide to "income security" to groups of people who fall into different categories. The first category is the elderly. The second category would be disabled people. A third category would be children who experience the loss of a parent.

It doesn't bother me at all that you can't set up accounts that "survive you" if you die prematurely. Its not the point of Social Security. Dead people don't need income. The point is to private benefits for living people who need those benefits. Its not to confer some kind of windfall on others.

If we were to structure Social Security in the way you describe than we'd have to raise taxes because there would be relatives and such getting lump sums from these accounts who don't get them now.

We all know how popular raising Social Security taxes is....

So as you have noted a solution is begging for adoption. The issue is not just SS sustainability because that alone will be insufficient for many without increased government assistance. The issue is the sustainability of our elderly population with our current level of debt weighing us down and growing at a rate that is not sustainable. Where does the money to sustain our future elderly poplulation come from if not redistributed from those who have to those don't. As you know the problem of our aging population is comprehensive and involves issues beyond SS. So in the process of adressing the problem in a comprehensive manner, don't those who do have suffiecient wealth need to worry about protecting their assets, so they can enjoy the retirement they worked for?

[RiverBird]

Originally Posted by markg91359

You can make an an argument that any form of government taxation and spending is "redistribution of income". I don't get gooey-eyed over it at all. Our representatives that we elect and send to Congress make these decisions by a majority vote. Its the way our system functions.

Social Security is not a private retirement program that was intended to have options A through Z. Its not really a retirement program at all. Its a program that is set up to provide to "income security" to groups of people who fall into different categories. The first category is the elderly. The second category would be disabled people. A third category would be children who experience the loss of a parent.

It doesn't bother me at all that you can't set up accounts that "survive you" if you die prematurely. Its not the point of Social Security. Dead people don't need income. The point is to private benefits for living people who need those benefits. Its not to confer some kind of windfall on others.

If we were to structure Social Security in the way you describe than we'd have to raise taxes because there would be relatives and such getting lump sums from these accounts who don't get them now.

We all know how popular raising Social Security taxes is....

Excellently put.

[markg91359]

My understand that Medicare and SS are on sound constitutional ground because they are a tax and individual mandate is just that a mandate to behave in a certain way. Not everyone needs to join Medicare or participate in SS as those not employed don't and public employees in some states don't. The individual mandate is an attempt to compel behavior on the part of the individual. SCOTUS is mindful of what is at stake. In fact there is appears to be a growing hope that the entire bill is not thrown out because the ending result would be chaos.

We essentially have five conservatives (I count Anthony Kennedy as such) and four moderates or liberals on the Supreme Court. If I had to make a bet today, I would be that the court will hold that the "individual mandate" is unconstitutional. If the court does hold the individual mandate unconstitutional it will be most unfortunate.

For all the problems I have with the private health insurance industry, they are basically correct about one thing. We really can't afford an insurance system where all sick and disabled people participate, but young and healthy people choose not to participate. Another reality is that previously healthy people can develop life-threatening health conditions at the blink of an eye. Its not simply a question of good habits and a healthy lifestyle. Insurance, be it car insurance, life insurance, or any kind of insurance works because an insurance company is able to spread risk around. Statisticians, or Actuaries, are able to tell insurance companies within some reasonable range how many people are likely to make claims and what the dollar value of those claims are. Premiums are than set to reflect that cost plus profit for the insurance company.

Insurance companies have typically either refused to insure those with a "pre-existing condition" or done so at a very high (generally unaffordable) rate. Obamacare was-as much as anything--an attempt make it possible to obtain affordable insurance for this group.

This is why the individual mandate is the "linchpin" of the whole plan. Without the mandate, we cannot provide insurance for those with a pre-existing condition at an affordable rate.

During the oral argument of this case before the US Supreme Court, it was pointed out that the insurance market is like no other market for goods or services in this country. It is that way in the sense that failure to purchase insurance can/will drive up the cost of insurance for those who do purchase it. If healthy people refuse to participate than insurance companies will be unable to provide coverage at anything approaching a reasonable rate for the sick and disabled.

The only other aspects of this that need to be addressed are the constitutional arguments. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce and no one in their right mind would argue that the healthcare industry which now comprises 16% of the total GDP in America doesn't have an enormous impact on interstate commerce. Congress also has the power to "tax and spend". This power can be used to enforce compliance with a statute. I don't see this issue as much different than social security which was upheld as constitutional many decades ago. Some people are allowed to opt out of social security, but its typically organizations not individuals that are allowed to opt out. I can't opt out as an individual unless I choose to be a "bum" or a "hobo" and not earn an income.

When push comes to shove though, my hunch is the Supreme Court will hold the individual mandate unconstitutional and than the whole plan will collapse. We'll be back to square one again. We'll have a system that is the most expensive in the world and yet fails to provide insurance for over 40 million Americans. Yes, that's something we should really be proud of.

[Dale Cooper]

Originally Posted by lenora

Surely you realize that Medicare Part A covers hospitalization and is the primary insurer for federal retirees? Before answering, consider that it is sometimes better to keep one's mouth shut than to open it and remove all doubt.

I knew libs would completely miss the point. Regular as clockwork.

Originally Posted by lenora

Sorry. I started researching your prior reply on the other thread and my ADHD kicked in.

Yep.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by markg91359

We all know how popular raising Social Security taxes is....

Yet lowering them at a time when the program is significantly challenged surpasses all understanding - NOT!

[Escort Rider]

Originally Posted by markg91359

We essentially have five conservatives (I count Anthony Kennedy as such) and four moderates or liberals on the Supreme Court. If I had to make a bet today, I would be that the court will hold that the "individual mandate" is unconstitutional. If the court does hold the individual mandate unconstitutional it will be most unfortunate.

For all the problems I have with the private health insurance industry, they are basically correct about one thing. We really can't afford an insurance system where all sick and disabled people participate, but young and healthy people choose not to participate. Another reality is that previously healthy people can develop life-threatening health conditions at the blink of an eye. Its not simply a question of good habits and a healthy lifestyle. Insurance, be it car insurance, life insurance, or any kind of insurance works because an insurance company is able to spread risk around. Statisticians, or Actuaries, are able to tell insurance companies within some reasonable range how many people are likely to make claims and what the dollar value of those claims are. Premiums are than set to reflect that cost plus profit for the insurance company.

Insurance companies have typically either refused to insure those with a "pre-existing condition" or done so at a very high (generally unaffordable) rate. Obamacare was-as much as anything--an attempt make it possible to obtain affordable insurance for this group.

This is why the individual mandate is the "linchpin" of the whole plan. Without the mandate, we cannot provide insurance for those with a pre-existing condition at an affordable rate.

During the oral argument of this case before the US Supreme Court, it was pointed out that the insurance market is like no other market for goods or services in this country. It is that way in the sense that failure to purchase insurance can/will drive up the cost of insurance for those who do purchase it. If healthy people refuse to participate than insurance companies will be unable to provide coverage at anything approaching a reasonable rate for the sick and disabled.

The only other aspects of this that need to be addressed are the constitutional arguments. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce and no one in their right mind would argue that the healthcare industry which now comprises 16% of the total GDP in America doesn't have an enormous impact on interstate commerce. Congress also has the power to "tax and spend". This power can be used to enforce compliance with a statute. I don't see this issue as much different than social security which was upheld as constitutional many decades ago. Some people are allowed to opt out of social security, but its typically organizations not individuals that are allowed to opt out. I can't opt out as an individual unless I choose to be a "bum" or a "hobo" and not earn an income.

When push comes to shove though, my hunch is the Supreme Court will hold the individual mandate unconstitutional and than the whole plan will collapse. We'll be back to square one again. We'll have a system that is the most expensive in the world and yet fails to provide insurance for over 40 million Americans. Yes, that's something we should really be proud of.

At the level of the Supreme Court, arguments about the desirability of a certain outcome, or about the negative consequences of a certain outcome, are beside the point. The Supreme Court is not a super-legislature designed to pass judgement on the wisdom or correctness of what Congress has done, except as it regards the consitutionality of acts of Congress. You have made a coherent and articulate argument for the desirability of mandatory purchase of health insurance, but I am much less impressed by your argument as to whether that passes purely constitutional muster. Yes, I am aware that you are better qualified than I to discuss this, but the foregoing remains my carefully considered opinion.

[TuborgP]

A perspective to agree with or disagree with.

Social Security: Should Those Over 55 Be Protected? - Encore - SmartMoney

In the case with which I am most familiar – Rhode Island – suspending the COLA and then linking future COLAs to the investment returns was an essential part of the solution. Retirees vastly outnumbered current workers, so making changes only for current and future workers would have had little impact on the state’s dire fiscal situation. Therefore, everyone needed to contribute to the solution.

So, how can it be fair for retirees to help solve the pension problem in Rhode Island and the other states and yet, when thinking about Social Security reform, tell those 55 and over that they will not be expected to contribute to the nation’s long-term solution to future funding problems?

The conventional argument for protecting Social Security participants is that older workers and retirees do not have the flexibility to adjust to benefit cuts. That is true, and these individuals should not be forced to endure drastic cuts. But the argument for leaving them completely untouched also does not seem compelling.

It could be argued that in the case of Social Security, the over-55 crowd actually misbehaved. It has been very clear since the early 1990s that Social Security would need additional money to maintain current benefits. Yet, the baby boom generation, instead of raising taxes on itself, kicked the can down the road. Now that many of its members are over 55, they want to foist the burden on younger generations. That does not seem fair.
This idea may seem heretical, but I currently think that some sort of COLA suspension or modification should be part of any package to fix Social Security. Such an approach has a precedent: the 1983 amendments delayed the COLA for six months when the program needed money immediately.

Any change to the COLA would have to be applied judiciously. Many older people depend completely on their Social Security check for income in retirement. The vulnerable would need to be protected. Thus, COLA changes would have to be implemented on a sliding scale, perhaps based on family benefits. But leaving all those 55 and older untouched no longer seems like the right answer.

[Escort Rider]

Originally Posted by TuborgP

A perspective to agree with or disagree with.

Social Security: Should Those Over 55 Be Protected? - Encore - SmartMoney

Very interesting. There are some perspectives, some ways of looking at things, in that article that had never occurred to me before. I think the writer makes a strong case. A national problem deserves a broad-based solution. The writer admits his ideas may be "heretical", yet his reasonable thinking outside of the box makes a lot of sense. Following in that vein, then, I am in favor of means-testing Social Security benefits as part of a future solution. They are welcome to start with me. I draw a very small Social Sec. monthly benefit that I don't need; the net amount is $47.00. They can keep it - in fact they can keep the gross amount - if I can keep my Medicare eligibility. Everybody says, "Oh, not me!" I say, well if not me, who then? And no, I am not a fat cat. Hitting only the fat cats will not produce enough to make a real difference.

Thanks for posting that, TuborgP.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by John1960

WASHINGTON (AP) — Social Security is rushing even faster toward insolvency, driven by retiring baby boomers, a weak economy and politicians' reluctance to take painful action to fix the huge retirement and disability program.

The trust funds that support Social Security will run dry in 2033 — three years earlier than previously projected — the government said Monday.

And why is this news?

Based on my extremely conservative calculations, I was projecting 2025-2028.

Given that things are far worse than I imagined, I will have to amend my projection to 2023-2025.

Gloating...

Mircea

Originally Posted by newenglandgirl

No, I don't think Medicare will go. It will be all the programs for the very poor that they'll axe, like Medicaid and foodstamps, etc.

If that is what it takes, then that is what must be done. Personally, I would rather reward the old who have given to Society, than to the young who have given nothing, and even that wouldn't be so bad, except instead of giving nothing, they took all that they could.

My projections on Medicare and Social Security are very conservative, but I didn't even imagine things were this bad. Medicare claimed in the June 2011 report insolvency by 2024. I was projecting 2018, but in light of this, 2016 is the most likely date.

It might even be worse than that. Medicare begged Congress to either raise the Medicare payroll tax rate or cut spending by 17% and Congress, to date, has done neither and by the time June 2012 rolls around, they will have done nothing, so Medicare will have been harmed that much further.

The short answer is you don't have any money. You never had the money for those programs, you don't have it now, and you never will; not 10 years from now; 20 years from now; 30 years from now or even 50 years from now.

The sooner people accept reality as fact, the sooner they can get on with finding realistic solutions.

All realistic solutions require increased taxes on all, combined with cuts to benefits.

Originally Posted by newenglandgirl

The social chaos and human misery that would descend on society, should SS and Medicare be significantly cut, would be a nightmare. (Of course the pensioners will be okay.) How would the country handle the millions who are disabled and already low income and depend primarily on SS??

The "nightmare" is coming and you cannot stop it.

Obviously, Americans will have to make some very major adjustments to their life-styles, which isn't news, since I said that way back in 2007 when I first came onto this forum. Look, two or three families sharing a 3 or 4 bedroom apartment or house is not the end of the world. If (god forbid) two children have to share a room growing up, they will live (and be that much better off for it).

Portending....

Mircea

Originally Posted by Bideshi

You're dead right, and it's telling that the media has avoided even mentioning that fact while reporting the short fall in SS funding. Tell me the game isn't rigged. They are causing SS to fail and intend to default.

They? You mean you. It was Congress, and Clinton, Bush the Younger and Obama who dropped the ball. They should have ensured there were regular increases in the FICA payroll taxes to cover Social Security and Medicare, but then anytime someone mentions raising taxes, you all scream bloody murder.

Originally Posted by Bideshi

Stop them from stealing from it. I don't know how other than vote every one out. Start funding it fully again with the old payroll tax deduction. Stop SSDI fraud.

Stealing what? There is nothing to steal. There hasn't been a surplus in FICA taxes collected since 2008.

And the surplus that was there, well, it's not been stolen, but it has been spent. That has no direct bearing on Social Security or Medicare.

And that's your fault too.

As far as SSDI fraud, it most certainly exists, as I witness it every single day. But SSDI fraud is not what has or is destroying Social Security. It's literally a drop in the bucket.

Rigging...

Mircea

Originally Posted by mathjak107

i agree , social security is sacred in this country.. everything else may get cut but you can pretty much take it to the bank the system will always be funded. the ramifications of not doing it is the end of civilization in america.

That will happen anyway.

Predicting...

Mircea

Originally Posted by markg91359

We all know there is a problem with SS and Medicare. Other than "play the fiddle while Rome burns" what do you all recommend we do about it?

Nothing can be done.

There's no way to achieve a consensus, because the majority of people don't even understand what Social Security or Medicare are.

If you started counter-socializing people to negate all of the liberal propaganda, you just might convince a majority of people that Social Security is an insurance plan, and not their own personal private pension retirement investment annuity savings account.

Once you get the vast majority of people on the same sheet of music, then maybe you can throw out some proposals, but I'll warn you advance, no one wants to hear the truth.

Originally Posted by markg91359

1. Raise the age for benefit eligibility;

That would be more harmful and cause more damage.

You could raise the early retirement age to maybe 64 for those born on or after 1980 or so.

My grandmother has 99 years. She looks like she's 58 and acts like she's 70. That's rare. A lot of people who have 62 years look like they're 85 and act like they're petrified/mummified.

I'll tell you exactly how this will play out.

If you raise the early retirement age, then instead of having 100 people retiring early at 62 with partial benefits, you'll have 12 people retiring at 65 with partial benefits and then 88 people retiring at 62 on disability receiving 100% of benefits.

You take a net loss on that.

Raise the full retirement age to 70 and it will be the same story. Instead of 100 people retiring at 70 on full benefits, you'll have 88 people retiring at 65 on disability.

You take a net loss on that too.

Originally Posted by markg91359

2. Medicare should only pay for those treatments that really help. For example, cancer medications that cost $100,000 and only add six weeks to longevity should not be paid for. All treatments should be ranked for their cost and efficacy and if they don't meet a certain standard they shouldn't be reimbursed;

Agreed. That is how the Euro-health system operates.

Originally Posted by markg91359

3. As the recession ends, raise payroll taxes gradually.

The recession already ended; 3 years ago.

When the FICA tax holiday ends, your economy will worsen.

That's too bad, because you need to raise the FICA rate ad hoc sine mora to not less than 9% if you have any hope of keeping Social Security alive.

SSA says ultimately the rate will need to be 16.4% by 2040 to keep it alive.

That means an immediate increase to 9% in 2012, and then a 0.6% increase every single year until at least 2040.

That will do wonders for your economy. I've already shown the math for this on other threads, but suffice to say that the States will lose $Billions in sales tax revenues.

Oooops.

What happens when the States lose sales tax revenues?

Go here...

Daily Job Cuts - Layoff News , Job Layoffs 2012 / 2011 , Bankruptcy, Store closings, Business Economy News

....and look at the number of school districts and county, municipal and State offices that are firing or laying off school and government employees.

Originally Posted by markg91359

4. This is a last resort measure. However, if worst comes to worst than "means-test" some or all of the benefits.

Last resort? Social Security and Medicare must be means-tested.

That is part of a four pronged attack:

1] Eliminate the cap; and

2] Immediately raise the FICA rate to 9.02%; and

3] Require regular FICA tax increases to 16.4% through 2040; and

4] Implement some form of means-testing.

If I implemented means-testing, it would be based on something like 200% over "poverty level."

Currently that is $30,260 per year for two people or $2,521/month. Your Social Security benefits would be cut but not below that limit. I'd look at your pension, savings/401(k) and assets and base it on that.

I'm sure people won't like it, but I might remind people that this is the price you pay for committing the cardinal sin of shirking your duties and obligations as a citizen.

Maybe that will motivate more people to turn off "Dancing with the Stars" and get involved.

Originally Posted by markg91359

I'm sure fault will be found with every suggestion here. That's fine. I just wish those who chose to "find fault" had a solution of their own. I don't include as solutions:

1. Ending Social Security and Medicare;

But you have to end them. They are unsustainable; for those born after 1990, there is nothing for them.

Originally Posted by MaseMan

Stop raiding the SS fund, stop spending an insane amount on "defense", and we'll be fine. Are those things likely to happen? Probably not.

No one is "raiding the 'SS' fund."

There hasn't been a surplus in FICA revenues collected since 2008, and there will never be an annual surplus ever again.

I don't know where you get your info from, but you are grotesquely misinformed. Even if the combined OASI/OADI Trust Funds and the HI (Medicare) Trust Fund and never been touched, and they were brimming with cold hard cash, you would still be in the exact same situation.

This has nothing to do with Trust Funds and everything to do with the fact that both Social Security and Medicare are legalized Ponzi-Schemes.

You don't have enough workers to bankroll beneficiaries and you never possibly could have enough workers.

Legally...

Mircea

Originally Posted by Navyshow

"Please, please remember that exhaustion is an actuarial term of art and it does not mean there will be no money left to pay any benefits" he warned in issuing the trustees' annual report on the financial health of the Social Security program.

"After 2033, even if Congress does nothing, there will still be sufficient assets (from payroll taxes) to pay about 75 percent of benefits. That's not acceptable, but it's still a fact that there will still be substantial assets there," Astrue insisted.

He's wrong.

It isn't 2033, it's 2023-2025. That is when the Social Security Trust Fund will "exhaust" itself, and as best as I can tell you'll only get about 58% of your benefits.

Why? For the exact same reason I am always right, and Social Security and Medicare are always wrong. Their projections are based on outrageously flawed economic models. Those models show the US GDP growing at rates of 4.1% to 6.4% annually.

Those growth rates are impossible to achieve for a post-Industrialized State. Because it is impossible for the US to ever achieve such rates, the revenues Medicare and Social Security projected that they would collect are inherently flawed and grossly over-estimated.

2001-2010 1.68%
1991-2010 2.55%
1981-2010 2.79%
1971-2010 2.89%
1961-2010 3.16%


1961-1970 4.22%
1971-1980 3.21%
1981-1990 3.27%
1991-2000 3.41%
2001-2010. 1.68%

Average 2.89%

As you can see, your GDP was in excess of 4% in the 1960s, but that is because you were still an industrializing. Agriculture is the first sector of the economy that industrializes, but it is always the last sector to completely industrialize. I have no idea why, it's just the way it works out in the world.

Once your agricultural sector industrializes, you'll see that your GDP drops to the standard for all post-Industrialized States. The reason GDP started declining this decade is due to the rapid industrialization of 3rd and 4th World States. BRIC has been doing the Jesus/Christian-thing and providing those countries with the money, tools and resources to develop (since the US refused to help them). Their development has resulted in rapidly rising global competition, and the US is unable to compete, and won't be, until about 2050-2060 or so (although things will get better in 2040 - maybe).

So, putting this altogether, the only way Social Security can collect the FICA tax revenues it needs to prevent exhaustion of the OASI/OADI Trust Fund by 2033 is this:

1] a GDP growth rate in excess of 4.1%; and

2] an unemployment rate of 5%; and

3] a labor participation rate of >66.5%; and

4] an underemployment rate of less than 6%-8%.

You need all four, not just one or two or three. In looking back at my spreadsheets and calculations, the reason the situation is worse than I anticipated, is because I did not factor in the underemployment rate.

Now that I have, I got a better read on it.

The problem is this: fewer people are working; those who are working are not necessarily working full-time, and even those who are working full-time are not earning the money they used to earn. All of those things (plus other factors) result in failed revenue projections. It also means that the Earnings Curve for many are heavily skewed, meaning the will not earn the wages over the course of their life-time that they normally would.

Social Security stupidly projected a 28.4% increase in revenues for 2012. I've explained repeatedly on other threads why that is impossible (and why the entire staff should be take out and shot). Because it is impossible to meet the revenue projections, you'll burn through 60%-70% of the Trust Fund by 2020, and then through the remainder in just a few short years at which time you will only collect enough in FICA taxes to pay out ~58% of benefits.

Originally Posted by Navyshow

2. Yes Virginia, there is a Trust Fund.
Social Security's critics love to argue that the SSTF is a myth, but it's not. Although Social Security was designed as a pay-as-you-go program, every penny it receives is credited to the SSTF, which has been building enormous reserves following benefit cuts enacted in 1983.
The Trustee report confirms - again - that the surplus funds are invested in "special issue Treasury bonds" and that they are "full faith and credit" obligations of the government to Social Security. Since Social Security can't borrow money by law, it uses those reserves to pay benefits whenever cash on hand runs short.

That is an outrageous lie.

Originally Posted by US Treasury Department

Treasury special securities are an asset to the OASI and DI Trust Funds and a liability to the U.S. Treasury. Because the OASI and DI Trust Funds and the U.S. Treasury are both part of the Government, these assets and liabilities offset each other for consolidation purposes in the

Originally Posted by US Treasury Department

U.S. Government-wide financial statements.

So, how much money is in the Trust Fund?


"...are an asset to the OASI Trust Fund..." means +2.7 TRILLION


"...a liability to the U.S. Treasury..." means -2.7 TRILLION


+$2.7 TRILLION
-$2.7 TRILLION

------------------
$0

Welcome to Bookkeeping 101.

Originally Posted by US Treasury Department

When the OASI and DI Trust Funds require redemption of these securities to make expenditures, the Government finances those expenditures out of accumulated cash balances,...

A euphemism for "Budget Surplus." The US will not see a budget surplus prior to the year 2040. We can rule that one out.

Originally Posted by US Treasury Department

...

Originally Posted by US Treasury Department

by raising taxes or other receipts,..

That means the government will have to raise the personal income tax rates, corporate income tax rates, capital gains tax rates, estate tax rates or import/export duties tariffs/rates and use that money to redeem the securities on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

In plain English, you're going to be taxed twice. If the government increases taxes to pay off the Social Security Trust Fund, then very obviously the government cannot use those tax dollars for the military, education, Medicaid or any other programs, offices or agencies, right?

Originally Posted by US Treasury Department

...

Originally Posted by US Treasury Department

by borrowing from the public..

The OASI/OADI Trust Funds are already included as part of the National Debt. They make up the non-public debt portion of the National Debt.

It works like this: The government needs $500 Billion to cover a shortfall in Social Security. The government then pays $500 Billion incurring a $500 Billion charge on the budget deficit. Treasury then sells $500 Billion worth of bonds increasing the public debt by $500 Billion. Let's say the National Debt is $20 TRILLION and the public debt is $15 TRILLION and non-public is $5 TRILLION. Now the National Debt is $20.5 TRILLION, public debt is $15.5 TRILLION and non-public debt is $5 TRILLION. When the securities are redeemed, the balance sheets look like this: National Debt $20 TRILLION; public debt $15.5 TRILLION; and non-public debt $4.5 TRILLION.

As you can see, the National Debt has not increased, but the public debt has, while the non-public debt has decreased.

Originally Posted by US Treasury Department

...

Originally Posted by US Treasury Department

or repaying less debt,...

That is a euphemism for defaulting. The government in this instance would simply refuse to pay Social Security benefits.

Originally Posted by US Treasury Department

...

Originally Posted by US Treasury Department

or by curtailing other expenditures.

Eventually, investors will refuse to purchase US Debt, perhaps due to credit down-grades. Doesn't matter why. What happens here assumes a balanced budget for the most part. The government collects $2.5 TRILLION in revenues. The government has to spend $500 Billion on Social Security so what does the government do? It slashes the budgets of all other programs and agencies to reach cuts of $500 Billion in order to pay Social Security (and the same applies to Medicare).

As an analogy, your employer has given you a paycheck and the paycheck has bounced.

How do you get your money?

You can beat up your employer and take it; steal it from your coworkers; steal your employers assets and sell them or auction them off for cash; and you could also sue your employer, although that might not do any good.

Euphemistically...

Mircea

Originally Posted by TuborgP

So as you have noted a solution is begging for adoption. The issue is not just SS sustainability because that alone will be insufficient for many without increased government assistance. The issue is the sustainability of our elderly population with our current level of debt weighing us down and growing at a rate that is not sustainable.

You're pretty much stuck in a vicious cycle.

Originally Posted by TuborgP

Where does the money to sustain our future elderly poplulation come from if not redistributed from those who have to those don't.

Smells like "tax the 'rich'." I'm not saying you should or shouldn't, I'm simply saying that there is a tremendous amount of disinformation and wishful thinking along the lines of "...if only we would tax the 'rich' are problems would all end."

You will have to raise taxes on everyone, rich and poor alike. You will also need to eliminate the cap, but note that there are consequences to that. As I said, the States, counties and municipalities will suffer losses in sales tax revenues.

So, them, um. how do the States and municipalities fund their pension programs?

Okay so, you're taxing the "rich" but your problems are only delayed, not solved. And that's for Social Security. What about Medicare? What about all other social welfare programs? What about State and federal spending in general? Again, the bottom line is you don't have the money; you never did; and you never will. You will have to make some major changes.

Economically..

Mircea

Originally Posted by markg91359

We essentially have five conservatives (I count Anthony Kennedy as such) and four moderates or liberals on the Supreme Court. If I had to make a bet today, I would be that the court will hold that the "individual mandate" is unconstitutional. If the court does hold the individual mandate unconstitutional it will be most unfortunate.

It would be the best thing that could ever happen.

If you want real reform in health care, then do exactly that.

Originally Posted by markg91359

We really can't afford an insurance system where all sick and disabled people participate, but young and healthy people choose not to participate.

It is not my function to fund your life-style. That includes your health care. That is your responsibility and you need to make wise choices, some of which you might dislike, but asta-i viata as we say in Romania.

If you have to cancel your cable TV in order to have $80-$120 extra dollars per month to pay for your health care, then what are you waiting for? Pick up the phone cancel the goddam cable.

You want me to pay your cable bill so you can have "health insurance?"

Wrong answer.

Originally Posted by markg91359

Insurance, be it car insurance, life insurance, or any kind of insurance works because an insurance company is able to spread risk around.

But "health insurance" is not insurance, because it is not based on risk.

What exactly is my risk for uterine cancer or pregnancy?

Absolutely ZERO, so why I am paying for it?

Originally Posted by markg91359

Insurance companies have typically either refused to insure those with a "pre-existing condition" or done so at a very high (generally unaffordable) rate.

And why wouldn't they?

Let me rephrase your specious remarks:

"[Auto] Insurance companies have typically either refused to insure those with a "drunk-driving conviction" or done so at a very high (generally unaffordable) rate.

And who exactly created these "pre-existing conditions?"

You did, because you refuse to accept responsibility for your own health care and dumped that responsibility onto your employer.

Then you have the gall to whine and cry that your employer knows too many personal things about your health and you demand HIPPA laws and a huge tax-payer funded bureaucracy to enforce HIPPA because you refuse to take responsibility and ownership of your own health care.

And then when your employer changes health plan providers, or you lose your job and have to switch health plans, or your voluntarily leave your job and have to switch health plans, you have the unmitigated gall to whine about "pre-existing conditions."

The first step in reforming the health care system, is to remove the responsibility for health pans from employers and dump it where it belongs: square on your shoulders.

Originally Posted by markg91359

Obamacare was-as much as anything--an attempt make it possible to obtain affordable insurance for this group.

And that is completely the wrong way to go about it.

If individuals took responsibility for their own health care coverage, then this wouldn't be an issue and the abomination that is Obamacare wouldn't be necessary.

Originally Posted by markg91359

This is why the individual mandate is the "linchpin" of the whole plan. Without the mandate, we cannot provide insurance for those with a pre-existing condition at an affordable rate.

Except that health care is intra-State commerce, and not Interstate commerce and Congress has no power to regulate it.

I don't have car insurance. I don't drive. I don't have a car either. What next, you going to force me to buy car insurance so that bad drivers can have lower rates and get insurance?

If individuals took responsibility for their own health care, instead of ramming it down the throats of their employers, then individuals would be able to pool their resources together.

See, you don't need Obamacare, you just need to take responsibility.

Originally Posted by markg91359

When push comes to shove though, my hunch is the Supreme Court will hold the individual mandate unconstitutional and than the whole plan will collapse. We'll be back to square one again. We'll have a system that is the most expensive in the world and yet fails to provide insurance for over 40 million Americans. Yes, that's something we should really be proud of.

And it is all your fault because you refuse to take responsibility.

I'm shocked that you didn't make some fallacious remark about the European health care system, oh, but then you cannot possibly have a system like Europe because Section 6001 of the ACA written by one of Obama's biggest campaign donors, the American Hospital Association, outlawed and banned clinics, which is what Europe uses and why they can afford health care and you cannot.

So after you take ownership of your own health care and relieve your employer of that responsibility (that they never should have had to being with) you can work on reducing health care costs 300% to 700% by bringing your obsolete and antiquated health care system into the 21st Century by switching from the Hospital Model to the Clinic Model, so that your health care will be more like Europe.

Yes, you will have to close 60% of your hospitals, but do you want low-cost affordable highly efficient and effective health care, or would you rather continue to pay through the eyeballs?

It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to figure it out.

You want to eliminate the cute little "Out-of-Network" charges in your health plans?

Simple, ban the illegal Hospital Cartels that illegally collude to illegally fix prices.

It requires only common sense, not Obamacare.

Common sensibly...

Mircea

[texdav]

C-span showed hearigs on medicare just yesterday and the proposal that is gianing was very inyeteresting to fix it. I fact former Clinto offical was in agreemnt with Former Sbator breaux who chaired the last commisoon on medicare and the Ryan/Wyden bi-patrtisan plan going thru the senate and house now.