william the wie
Gold Member
- Nov 18, 2009
- 16,667
- 2,402
- 280
The last sentence is certainly true but you really have to get into the guts of the assumptions made by the CBO, TOMB, the think tanks and all of the rest of the dueling guesstimates to determine the bottomline. While I agree with your position and have said so I am much less confident that it can be eliminated that easily."that possibility really is"
Umm the key word here is possibility.
If we adjust the retirement age upwards (due to longer lifetimes) and remove the upper salary cap for SS withholding, the possibility will likely vanish.
At least for the next 100 years.
The real issue with SS is that the govt spent the surplus and does not want to pay it back.
1) The pay in and pay out states meme is one boobytrap. The "pay in" states being on average older than most the nation as a whole are the primary recipients of SS so there is a huge and inaccurate body of data that will be uncovered in the process of reform. The blood tax of military service also tends to be disregarded in the pay in pay out debate. This will complicate matters a lot.
2) No one trusts the economic stats being put out by any side. Politicians lie but voters act as if their guy is both truthful and competent which are two dubious assumptions for the price of one. Getting a working consensus going will be rough.
3) The promotion of off label use of generic drugs and streamlining the acceptance of medical equipment is also needed. This week's "The Economist" had an article on low cost Chinese and Indian medical equipment especially imaging equipment, that was shocking. A complete body scan in India costs 1-10% of what it does here because of simpler technology. The UHC bureaucracy that is being set up will be a huge roadblock to medical progress.
So, while what we both propose would work getting it passed in one swell foop is unlikely in the extreme, it will be a long, drawn out process.