Let's have a serious debate on Social Security /Medicare/Medicaid...What are your alternative proposals..? (generation, poll)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no simple answer, because there are so many factors.
1. Inflation in costs (i.e., debasement of the money token)
2. Bureaucratic overhead
3. Regulatory waste and abuse
4. Administrative overhead
5. Government mismanagement and bungling
6. Elimination of the right to healthcare (It is a crime to give care without a license. And one needs to buy "permission" (prescription) to buy health care items.)
Since government is the source of most of those problems, the solution is removing government OUT of the picture.
I support the end of "voluntary" national socialism (there is no law compelling participation), but I would insist that the national debt be voided, on the grounds of fraud (13 trillions were never lent to the U.S. government to substantiate that debt), and since 1933, no dollars have circulated. Debt denominated in "dollars" but based on an extension of credit using worthless paper may have to be scaled downward or voided entirely.
I would rather that private charity be used for serving the needs of the people, than compulsory public charity, controlled by bureaucrats, perverted by partisan politics, and ripe with corruption. (Just watch the innumerable TV ads for powered chairs - paid for by YOU - and you can bet that there's a hefty profit margin to account for those ad budgets.)
The upshot is that with a deflation on the order of 4000:1, the sticker shock will be quite different (a new car: $9.99 U.S.). Of course, there will be a problem with creditors and debtors, since the unit of money would no longer be the paper dollar bill. And the counterfeit fractional coin will have to be removed from circulation. And international trade will have to renegotiate new terms of payment. Did I forget to mention that the government should no longer enforce contracts for usury in any court of law?
But ultimately, we cannot continue under the current system without collapse, and that collapse would eliminate the entitlement system. So let us eliminate the problem before it eliminates us.
Voluntary charity is a blessing.
Compulsory charity is a curse.
"No one should suffer because he lacks {fill in the blank}", must be prefaced with "No one should be compelled to labor for another, so that ..."
Using government to coerce donors to surrender their labor and property for the benefit of recipients is nothing less than institutionalized slavery.
Slavery is never an acceptable solution to the ills of mankind.
Of course, the odds are more in favor of a total collapse, and a replacement of the United Socialist States of America with the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America - sans that pesky "limiting" U.S. Constitution - the charter of "negative liberties" (** saith BHO).
The cornestore of socialism is the Social Security system.
Founded at 1935,in syncronisation with the rise of socialists ( & ...national-socialists ) in Europe.
The program was "enriched" in 1965 with
socialised medicine for the elderly ( Medicare)
& "charity " medicine ( Medicaid).
Almost all Dems support the current system,
in fact many want it more..."progressive".
Republicans are divided.
The leftwing supports SS,only wants technical improvements.
The rightwing only talk about reform,partial privatisation ,what
ever.
What is your opinion on the subject
& what are your proposals for alternative systems,
more socialised or more capitalistic...
You may vote too...
I wish we could start over from scratch. I used to think saving for retirmement should be voluntary, hence no SS. Now that I'm older, I know that 95% of people would never save anywhere close to enough to live out their old age with dignity. People are creatures of short term habit and all the rational arguments in favor of saving won't change the behavior of most.
But I do wish we could have a privatized system whereby you contributed 10% of your gross salary to an index fund that covered a broad spectrum of US Stocks (60%) and a broad spectrum of US investment grade bonds (40%). It could be done at very low cost (.08% of assets or lower). There is a fund that already does this called Vanguard Balanced Index (VBAIX) Its return over the last 15 years has been 6.9%, despite lousy stock market returns over that time period (actually a little bit higher than 6.9% because this ultra low cost share class wasn't around 15 years ago...probably more like 6.95%, but it's always good to be a little conservative). http://performance.morningstar.com/f...&culture=en-US
Somebody making 30K per year over 35 years would have a nest egg of $442,000 in that time period at that rate. 6.9% is, historically speaking, on the low side of average for such a portfolio. The oldest and highest cost share class of this fund has returned 7.16% since its inception in 1992. That means the cheapest share class, at it's current expense ratio, would have returned just over 7.3% ). But even at the lower 6.9% rate, that would mean a monthly income of over $1473 per month (plus an annual inflation adjustment) in retirement, using the standard 4% withdrawal rate, which is better than today's average SS check of about $1100 per month. After 40 years, at the same salary level & rate of return, it would be about $641,731...which would be a monthly income of about $2139 plus annual inflation adjustment, which is waaay more than your average SS recipient gets, especially at a 30K income level.
I would let people save more than that (up to a certain dollar amount, say 16K, which I think is the current 401K limit) if they wanted to in a 401K that would be universal (e.g. employers would have to provide them, perhaps with government subsidies for administrative costs). Anything above the 10%, they'd be able to invest in any combination of stocks or mutual funds they wanted.
This would also give people more flexibility in deciding when to retire instead of some arbitrary age. It would also allow them to pass on their nest eggs to their children or other heirs. It would be the person's personal property, not subject to the whims and rules of the government. Ok, there would have to be some rules about at what age you can start withdrawing and/or how much you can take out at one time, but it would still be personal property.
Ok, I know this is just a fantasy. Maybe it will happen after our existing system collapses.
Last edited by mysticaltyger; 09-07-2010 at 06:01 PM..
The cornestore of socialism is the Social Security system.
Founded at 1935,in syncronisation with the rise of socialists ( & ...national-socialists ) in Europe.
The program was "enriched" in 1965 with
socialised medicine for the elderly ( Medicare)
& "charity " medicine ( Medicaid).
Almost all Dems support the current system,
in fact many want it more..."progressive".
Republicans are divided.
The leftwing supports SS,only wants technical improvements.
The rightwing only talk about reform,partial privatisation ,what
ever.
What is your opinion on the subject
& what are your proposals for alternative systems,
more socialised or more capitalistic...
You may vote too...
If you can't pay for it, dump it. I guess I would want eleventy trillion dollars and sixteen 100,000 square foot mansions and all the root beer I could drink on ice in 10,000 Porshes. I can't pay for it, therefore I will not and should not have it.
Social security was and is an artifact of a time in which there were MANY workers to one recipient and the US had no economic competitors and little debt. We have no money.
We cannot keep funding programs that will become bankrupt and as a result, bankrupt our nation. Any reasonable person knows that. We are facing some hard decisions, but the entitlements will have to stop if we are to go on as a nation.
A winning proposal should be solid,well detailed & offer services & pensions equal or better than the SS program...
How do we respond to the claims that privatising SS could put it at the risk of "Wall Street volatilities "..?
A pension paid with public monies is an abomination - making others work and pay taxes for the benefit of another. A private pension system is acceptable.
A medical care system paid with public monies is also an abomination. But part of the blame lies with criminalization of private health care givers. There is no "Right" to health care when one must get government permission before buying and selling health care.
Any system of public entitlement involves a penalty on the healthy and productive, for the benefit of the unhealthy and non-productive. Savvy folks will instinctively seek to change from donors to beneficiaries. Which means corruption and waste is endemic to any public charity.
And usury, charging a fee in money for the use of money, is mathematically impossible in a finite money token system. (Or if you prefer philosophical grounds, it's an abomination, proscribed by all religions as a means to steal.)
So, under current conditions, with a debt-credit money token system, borrowed at usury into existence (see Title 12 USC sec. 411), and a bankrupt government, there is really no winning proposal.
I wish we could start over from scratch. I used to think people saving for retirmement should be voluntary, hence no SS. Now that I'm older, I know that 95% of people would never save anywhere close to enough to live out their old age with dignity. People are creatures of short term habit and all the rational arguments in favor of saving won't change the behavior of most.
But I do wish we could have a privatized system whereby you contributed 10% of your gross salary to an index fund that covered a broad spectrum of US Stocks (60%) and a broad spectrum of US investment grade bonds (40%). It could be done at very low cost (.08% of assets or lower). There is a fund that already does this called Vanguard Balanced Index (VBAIX) Its return over the last 15 years has been 6.9%, despite lousy stock market returns over that time period (actually a little bigh higher than 6.9% because this ultra low cost share class wasn't around 15 years ago...probably more like 6.95%, but it's always good to be a little conservative).
Somebody making 30K per year over 35 years would have a nest egg of $442,000 in that time period at that rate (6.9%....which is, historically speaking, on the low side of average for such a portfolio). That would mean a monthly income of over $1600 per month (plus an annual inflation adjustment) in retirement, using the standard 4% withdrawal rate, which is better than today's average SS Check of about $1100 per month.
I would let people save more than that (up to a certain dollar amount, say 16K, which I think is the current 401K limit) if they wanted to in a 401K that would be universal (e.g. employers would have to provide them, perhaps with government subsidies for administrative costs). Anything above the 10%, they'd be able to invest in any combination of stocks or mutual funds they wanted.
This would also give people the flexibility of when to retire instead of some arbitrary age. It would also allow them to pass on their nest eggs to their children or other heirs. It would be the person's personal property, not subject to the whims and rules of the government.
Ok, I know this is just a fantasy. Maybe it will happen after our existing system collapses.
However,still no proposal about an alternative system...
A winning proposal should be solid,well detailed & offer services & pensions equal or better than the SS program...
How do we respond to the claims that privatising SS could put it at the risk of "Wall Street volatilities "..?
I would simply end social "security". Anyone that is paying into it would just be relieved of their forced payments.
People already collecting would still collect. The feds own trillions of dollars in land and buildings. They could start selling it off to fund the people already on it. And to pay back what they have already taken from us still working. The feds have no business owning all that stuff anyway. They need the White House, Capitol, and Supreme Court buildings. Maybe a few administrative offices here and there for the military and what not.
The Social Security budget is 25 billion dollars in the hole this year. And it is unlikely it will ever break even again. It obviously does not work. It's only going to get worse. And it will eventually bankrupt us.
It is insane to keep it. And there is no way to fix it.
If you eliminate Social Security, and Medicare then America essentially becomes a third world country. We may be on that trajectory anyway with a inadequate educational system, a growing gap between the rich and poor, poor wage and economic growth and ineffective government.
I think this is a bunch of baloney to think that you need these programs to be a 1st world country.
I, for one, think most of our health care should be paid for in cash, out of pocket. All health insurance and government sponsorship of health care have done is hide the true costs, and inflate the price of health care. They've also broken the relationship between healthy habits and the cost of care. If people really knew the full price of their health care, and had the ability to shop around for it instead of being herded into employer or government sponosred plans:
1. We'd have a more competitive system with lower prices and better quality.
and
2. People would see how much it really costs and take more control. A good number would change to healthier habits and this would become "contagious" and spread to others as a social thing.
But since people have almost no immediate or direct control over their health care costs like they do for many of their other expenses, we are on the road to financial disaster.
Even liberal progressives like Nami Wolfe seem to understand that government guaranteed health care is not very helpful if your government is corrupt, as ours is:
Here's what she had to say about the recent health care bill:
I think what's more important for citizens to notice is that a 2500 page bill got turned into a law without any accurate, thorough, summary of it appearing in any media where any of us could really follow it and make informed judgments. I think the fact that it appeared in the form of 2500 pages without an English language, 5 page summary from our government....shows how the people are being deliberately shut out of the deliberative process.
And I guess I also have to say that...as a liberal by heritage, my instinct is to support single payer or government solutions to things like health care. But when your government has been taken over by the medical lobby, the insurance lobby, and various other special interests that aren't sick people, it doesn't mean that single payer is going to be in your best interest, or that a government solution is going to be in your best interest.....Obviously, I want Americans to have health insurance, but I'm not persuaded yet that this bill is the kind of thing that we see in Northern Europe, where the govenment makes sure everybody gets health care.
I don't agree with Wolf of the socialized medicine thing....but at least she's willing to come out of pie-in-the-sky idealism to look at this stuff with a critical eye. We need more of that. A lot more.
Last edited by mysticaltyger; 09-07-2010 at 07:02 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
