Means-testing - a strategy for taking away benefits

[Star]

.

"By falsely asserting that the benefits of Medicare and Social Security are major
drivers of the deficit, conservatives try to divert attention from the
wasteful things that actually drive deficits."​

6 Reasons Joseph Stiglitz and Other Top Economists Think Means-Testing Medicare & Social Security Is a Destructive Idea

Means-testing is a back-door strategy
for taking away benefits earned
by hard-working Americans.​

Lynn Stuart Parramore
December 31, 2012


<snip>


1. Means-Testing Undermines Progressive Values
At their heart, programs like Medicare and Social Security are about fairness, equality and shared citizenship, values that progressive Americans hold dear.

Medicare and Social Security are not welfare programs. They are benefits that people pay for as they work. They are also smart social insurance programs that spread risk across society in order to protect everyone at rates no private insurance scheme, with its much smaller risk pool, could touch.

<snipped>

2. Means-Testing Won&#8217;t Stop at the Wealthy
Make no mistake: If means-testing on the wealthy is allowed, conservatives will keep pushing until that same means-testing is applied to the middle class, who increasingly must rely on Social Security and Medicare in times of economic uncertainty and job insecurity.


.

Only post the first paragraph of a copied article due to board copyright rules. Newby

 

[Publius1787]

Hell yeah! Means test it. And if they dont get the benefit then give them their money back!

 

[The Rabbi]

.

"By falsely asserting that the benefits of Medicare and Social Security are major
drivers of the deficit, conservatives try to divert attention from the
wasteful things that actually drive deficits."​

Except the growth of entitlement programs IS the major driver of the deficit.
Fail.

 

[Publius1787]

.

"By falsely asserting that the benefits of Medicare and Social Security are major
drivers of the deficit, conservatives try to divert attention from the
wasteful things that actually drive deficits."​

Except the growth of entitlement programs IS the major driver of the deficit.
Fail.

Exactly my point. Without redistribution of wealth the left has no platform.

 

[boedicca]

We're going to have means testing. I would be for it if we also reformed SS and Medicare to be private savings programs along the Chilean model. If people were able to keep and invest their own money instead of the government borrowing it to fund CRAP, then far fewer people would need the safety net.

 

[Publius1787]

We're going to have means testing. I would be for it if we also reformed SS and Medicare to be private savings programs along the Chilean model. If people were able to keep and invest their own money instead of the government borrowing it to fund CRAP, then far fewer people would need the safety net.

But if people have control over their own money then the government will have a tough time redistributing the private savings of the responsible to the dependents of the state. Democrats will never go for it.

 

[SniperFire]

Obama's 'death panels' are a means test.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Means testing is almost the only sound fiscal idea to come out of DC in years.

We're upside down and to right the ship before it sinks is going to require sacrifices.

 

[Star]

Means testing is almost the only sound fiscal idea to come out of DC in years.

We're upside down and to right the ship before it sinks is going to require sacrifices.

As you know, at least I think you're smart enough to know (you can choose to prove me wrong about that) Social Security ain't upside down and doesn't contribute to the debt.


What does it say to you that, so far, the only posters responding to the info in the OP are the same posters that have implied in past posts that they want to see Social Security and Medicare destroyed, which of course, is a part of the proof that "means testing" is a pathway to the destruction of the solvent-efficient-successful-popular-government run Social Security and Medicare programs but-----but to rightwinger's chagrin the greatest POTUS in history designed Social Security to be attached to a payroll tax so that “no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”


"Medicare and Social Security are not handouts to the needy. They are not even intended to be a safety net. In their design, they promote the fundamental notion that dignity and good health in old age are not special privileges that can be bestowed or taken away. They are fundamental rights that every working American who has contributed productively to the economy can expect to enjoy. As James K. Galbraith told me in an email, “It’s insurance, not charity.”

Means-testing runs against this fundamental idea by turning Medicare and Social Security into welfare programs that become bargaining chips for politicians. The programs become provisional rather than fundamental. President Franklin Roosevelt understood this point well, which is why he designed Social Security to be attached to a payroll tax so that “no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”" ~ Lynn Stuart Parramore
.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Social security pays out far more individually than it takes in. That is upside down. Period. The system is a flawed gimmick that no longer protects seniors but rather ensures that congress always has a funded piggy bank to rob.

 

[boedicca]

As you know, at least I think you're smart enough to know (you can choose to prove me wrong about that) Social Security ain't upside down and doesn't contribute to the debt.

What is in the SS Lockbox?

 

[Publius1787]

As you know, at least I think you're smart enough to know (you can choose to prove me wrong about that) Social Security ain't upside down and doesn't contribute to the debt.

What is in the SS Lockbox?

And with a click of the mouse the fallacy became no more.

 

[Star]

Social security pays out far more individually than it takes in. That is upside down. Period. The system is a flawed gimmick that no longer protects seniors but rather ensures that congress always has a funded piggy bank to rob.

Means-testing runs against this fundamental idea by turning Medicare and Social Security into welfare programs that become bargaining chips for politicians. The programs become provisional rather than fundamental. ~ Lynn Stuart Parramore


I see what you're saying, I should have used the term solvent. Social Security is not in crisis and is projected to be solvent for about another 25 years and-----and the vast majority of Americans think we should be spending more, not less on Social Security.


"These findings, from an IWPR/Rockefeller Survey of Economic Security, were published in a report released today, Retirement on the Edge: Women, Men, and Economic Insecurity After the Great Recession. The survey finds that most Americans support the Social Security system and do not believe the program is in crisis—a perspective that is out of line with the current political debate. Very few Americans think that we spend too much on Social Security (only 12 percent of women and 16 percent of men). A majority of men and women would like to see benefits increased.
Women aged 18–44 are the most likely to say that we do not spend enough on Social Security (62 percent). The majority of voters who identify as Democrat, Republican, or independent say that Social Security should not be cut. Support for Social Security remains strong among all age groups surveyed and is even stronger among women than among men.

While a majority of Americans say they don’t mind paying Social Security taxes because of the benefits they will receive in their own retirement (74 percent of women and 69 percent of men), a higher proportion is willing to pay taxes because of the security and stability the program provides to retired Americans, the disabled, and the children and widowed spouses of deceased workers (88 percent of women and 82 percent of men)." ~ Caroline Dobuzinskis

.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Means testing is almost the only sound fiscal idea to come out of DC in years.

We're upside down and to right the ship before it sinks is going to require sacrifices.

As you know, at least I think you're smart enough to know (you can choose to prove me wrong about that) Social Security ain't upside down and doesn't contribute to the debt.


What does it say to you that, so far, the only posters responding to the info in the OP are the same posters that have implied in past posts that they want to see Social Security and Medicare destroyed, which of course, is a part of the proof that "means testing" is a pathway to the destruction of the solvent-efficient-successful-popular-government run Social Security and Medicare programs but-----but to rightwinger's chagrin the greatest POTUS in history designed Social Security to be attached to a payroll tax so that “no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”


"Medicare and Social Security are not handouts to the needy. They are not even intended to be a safety net. In their design, they promote the fundamental notion that dignity and good health in old age are not special privileges that can be bestowed or taken away. They are fundamental rights that every working American who has contributed productively to the economy can expect to enjoy. As James K. Galbraith told me in an email, “It’s insurance, not charity.”

Means-testing runs against this fundamental idea by turning Medicare and Social Security into welfare programs that become bargaining chips for politicians. The programs become provisional rather than fundamental. President Franklin Roosevelt understood this point well, which is why he designed Social Security to be attached to a payroll tax so that “no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”" ~ Lynn Stuart Parramore
.

Exactly.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I'd be perfectly happy if they'd just refund what has been taken from me all these years. I willingly assume responsibility for my welfare in old age. Thanks.

 

[Star]

Means testing is almost the only sound fiscal idea to come out of DC in years.

We're upside down and to right the ship before it sinks is going to require sacrifices.

Even the Physicians for a National Health Program is against forcing the wealthy to pay more than they are already paying, so why do you think it's a sound fiscal idea to force rich people to pay even more than they're already paying via higher tax rates?

Means testing Medicare

Don McCanne MD
Tuesday, Dec 11, 2012

<snip>

Now that health care costs are unbearably high, Medicare must be progressively financed since moderate- and low-income individuals can no longer bear the full costs. A major step forward was the removal of the cap on wages subject to Medicare taxes, so higher income individuals pay more. The Affordable Care Act also added a new 0.9% Medicare tax for incomes over $200,000/$250,000.
In addition, in order to help cover Medicaid expansion and subsidies for the exchange plans, the Affordable Care Act also added a 3.8% tax on investment income, again for those with incomes over $200,000/$250,000. So we have already embarked on policies that make health care financing progressive, though we need to do more, but only on the financing end.

Medicare benefits should be the same for everyone. We should eliminate premiums and cost sharing, and we should expand benefits so that administratively wasteful Medigap and retiree health benefit programs are no longer necessary. Low income individuals should receive the same standard of care as the wealthy, just as was the intent in enacting the traditional Medicare program.

Introducing means testing, which we have already begun with Part B and Part D premiums, reduces support of wealthier beneficiaries who are annoyed by these additional charges. Once the principle of means testing is established, the budget hawks ratchet it up, driving wealthier individuals to look for private options, currently available as the Medicare Advantage plans. It is only one small additional step to introduce premium support – vouchers – where the wealthy will take their money and run. Once you lose support of wealthier individuals who have a strong political voice, then Medicare will descend down the path toward becoming a welfare program, like Medicaid.

We cannot allow this bipartisan attack on Medicare to proceed. Mobilize the forces!
.

 

[auditor0007]

Hell yeah! Means test it. And if they dont get the benefit then give them their money back!

It should not be means tested, period. Just drop the cap and tax all income. This is easily justified by the fact that SS and Medicare are pay as we go programs, regardless of what anyone wants to argue.

 

[auditor0007]

We're going to have means testing. I would be for it if we also reformed SS and Medicare to be private savings programs along the Chilean model. If people were able to keep and invest their own money instead of the government borrowing it to fund CRAP, then far fewer people would need the safety net.

But if people have control over their own money then the government will have a tough time redistributing the private savings of the responsible to the dependents of the state. Democrats will never go for it.

Private savings in place of SS would be a horrible mistake. We all know exactly what would happen. Many people would invest poorly and their savings plans would not provide nearly enough of a cushion for their retirement, not even close to what they would have received through SS. Some would do very well with such a system, but many would turn it into a mess for themselves. Then guess what would happen? The government would have to step in to bail these people out because we would have millions of homeless senior citizens.

As for the Chilean system of privatization, it is falling well short of it's advertised benefits.

NathanNewman.org

 

[The Rabbi]

We're going to have means testing. I would be for it if we also reformed SS and Medicare to be private savings programs along the Chilean model. If people were able to keep and invest their own money instead of the government borrowing it to fund CRAP, then far fewer people would need the safety net.

But if people have control over their own money then the government will have a tough time redistributing the private savings of the responsible to the dependents of the state. Democrats will never go for it.

Private savings in place of SS would be a horrible mistake. We all know exactly what would happen. Many people would invest poorly and their savings plans would not provide nearly enough of a cushion for their retirement, not even close to what they would have received through SS. Some would do very well with such a system, but many would turn it into a mess for themselves. Then guess what would happen? The government would have to step in to bail these people out because we would have millions of homeless senior citizens.

As for the Chilean system of privatization, it is falling well short of it's advertised benefits.

NathanNewman.org

So because some people are stupid we should penalize everyone? This is the liberal ideal of equality: everyone equally poor and miserable.

 

[jillian]

But if people have control over their own money then the government will have a tough time redistributing the private savings of the responsible to the dependents of the state. Democrats will never go for it.

Private savings in place of SS would be a horrible mistake. We all know exactly what would happen. Many people would invest poorly and their savings plans would not provide nearly enough of a cushion for their retirement, not even close to what they would have received through SS. Some would do very well with such a system, but many would turn it into a mess for themselves. Then guess what would happen? The government would have to step in to bail these people out because we would have millions of homeless senior citizens.

As for the Chilean system of privatization, it is falling well short of it's advertised benefits.

NathanNewman.org

So because some people are stupid we should penalize everyone? This is the liberal ideal of equality: everyone equally poor and miserable.

serious question: how is "individual stupidity" responsible for market crashes like the one in 2008?