Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well, you take their money and allow them to invest it in bonds. For the rest of us, allow us to invest it however we want, that's the solution.
Like those people who invested in Enron, and now spend their retirement as Wal*Mart greeters?
The myth of inefficiency in Social Security comes from a skewed examination of only the retirement side of the program. Throw in the value of the disability insurance portion of SS, and it's money well-spent.
Before Social Security, most elderly and disabled lived and died in poverty and dependence. Social Security reversed that. Conservatives said it would ruin the country, but it didn't. Conservatives were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
Lmao...that 0.01% of a democratic congressman must be pretty unpopular.
Could you provide a link please?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/jan-june07/medicare_01-12.html
KWAME HOLMAN: The Medicare prescription drug program signed into law in 2003 includes a provision barring the federal government from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices.
During congressional debate on that measure, House Democrats railed against that restriction, but they fell one vote short of defeating the bill.
When your parents make a bad investment, and you end up supporting them, you will understand.
When you want a promotion, but the guy ahead of you has no retirement and won't vacate the job, you will understand.
If you get killed and your kids use Social Security to get through college, you won't understand, but your kids will.
It can't be done...just as the boomers paid for their parent's retirements and even their own retirement once the surplusses were taxed on to them in 1983 going forward, the children of the boomers will have to help pay for them is the WAY SS is SETUP....? so if the young were to just pull out and invest individually then there would be no money to pay for the boomers?Well, you take their money and allow them to invest it in bonds. For the rest of us, allow us to invest it however we want, that's the solution.
It can't be done...just as the boomers paid for their parent's retirements and even their own retirement once the surplusses were taxed on to them in 1983 going forward, the children of the boomers will have to help pay for them is the WAY SS is SETUP....? so if the young were to just pull out and invest individually then there would be no money to pay for the boomers?
How would you fund the gap?
care
I have life insurance, my kids would do just fine, Thank you. But nice try!
So what your suggesting is that future seniors should fund the shortfall or do we simply spend ourselves into bankruptcy to fund it?
nope, this is why reforms need to take place now... we will for the thrid time since I have been paying in to it, take a reduction in benefits that were once promised to us and there will have to be reforms in how we invest the surplusses and measures to stop the raiding of it for the uses of what general revenues from the irs should pay for, set it up where a portion of the young's contributions go towards a private individual account, extend the the SS cap of 102k to maybe $250k gradually over a ten year period....
A number of things in combination can solve the SS problem, fairly easily if it is done NOW.
However, MEDICARE is going to bankrupt us if we do not make some major reforms in the health INDUSTRY which are too numerous to list here, including allowing us to negotiate with PHARMA for bulk discounts and being allowed to buy drugs from other westernized countries.....
How about disabled? Do you have a private disability insurance that would cover your wife and your kid if you were disabled but NOT DEAD....or would you rely on the gvts disability plan?
or let your family struggle with the medical bills from your disability, with only the income of your wife? (PS, if you don;'t have any private disability insurance, I would suggest getting it, just to be certain all situations are covered, if you do have the money to do such)
care has a good point. Keep in mind that many disability coverages provided by employers only cover incidents that happen on the job. Many people who think they are "fully covered" wind up in shock. You'd be amazed how much employers in choosing plans weasel their way around things in the fine print in order to cut insurance costs. It's like anything else in the business world....be careful as others are primarily looking after their own bottom line...you are the only one who is really watching your own back...and it's easy to be deluded into thinking you are...that's why I think employers should be taken out of the health insurance loop....the primary customer should be the individual IMO.Yes I have long term and short term disability through my employer. But for those that don't, I'm sure that the payroll taxes that go toward Social Security would provide adequate coverage.
Medical disasters account for the majority of bankruptcies.
I agree with most of the post, although I think Universal Health Care is a better solution than individual coverage. But I wanted to highlight the last sentence.
A study by Harvard University researchers found that the average out-of-pocket medical debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000. The study noted that 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses. Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem. [emphasis added]
Health Insurance Cost
Of those health care bankruptcies, most or all had other debts, but many could have managed if a medical crisis had not pushed their load over the top. Especially the 68% who had insurance, but found their coverage denied or inadequate. Imagine the economic benefit if up to 50% of bankruptcies were avoided because medical costs no longer pushed consumers over the top into financial ruin.
Thanks for the interesting backup figures. However, I see Universal Health Care as another form of health insurance similar to employer-type insurance. In other words, you the primary user of the health care product is once again NOT the primary chooser of your health care product. The government is. And we all know how great the government is at any project they take on....
Why can't the INDIVIDUAL buy his own health care on the free market at reasonable prices? I'll tell you why.....there are too many others who got their money grubbing fingers in the pot...
I agree that private insurance today needs an overhaul. Frankly, I believe we should do away with insurance altogether for standard medical needs and only use insurance for catestrophic situations. That would help to provide all kinds of choices for people on a free market.Private insurance will kick you out if they can save money. In America, more people are satisfied with Medicare (61%) than private solutions (34%), as I explained here.
And don't confuse providers (doctors and hospitals) with payers (individuals and insurance). I want the government to assume the role of payer only. You get more choice that way than you will with preferred provider plans and HMOs.
care has a good point. Keep in mind that many disability coverages provided by employers only cover incidents that happen on the job. Many people who think they are "fully covered" wind up in shock. You'd be amazed how much employers in choosing plans weasel their way around things in the fine print in order to cut insurance costs. It's like anything else in the business world....be careful as others are primarily looking after their own bottom line...you are the only one who is really watching your own back...and it's easy to be deluded into thinking you are...that's why I think employers should be taken out of the health insurance loop....the primary customer should be the individual IMO.
If you were to get permanently sick or disabled your employer would have to fire you for not being able to work and then you would lose your insurance coverage (after 18 mos. COBRA) and then you would have to pay the full cost of the monthly premiums yourself - which would increase hugely. So unless you had the funds put aside to cover the extra costs (not to mention daily living costs) you probably would lose the expensive coverage and need to go onto government aid. Medical disasters account for the majority of bankruptcies.
ABSOLUTELY!Agreed, although I pay into my own disability that is portable between jobs. We need to make disability insurance as well as other types of insurances portable for the individual.
I agree that private insurance today needs an overhaul. Frankly, I believe we should do away with insurance altogether for standard medical needs and only use insurance for catestrophic situations. That would help to provide all kinds of choices for people on a free market.
If we allow the government to "assume the role of payer" that means the providers (doctors and hospitals) become essentially employees of the government. Ya know what they say about gummint workers...
ABSOLUTELY!
The way it's set up today a person who has a pre-existing whatever cannot even move to another area or state because they would get smacked with a huge hike in their medical premiumn by changing medical groups....so they remain prisoners tied to their "group coverage"...
PS: I wonder if "universal health care" would solve that problem?
Perhaps. But even if true, would the care be acceptable to you?Yes, it would.
