Looking forward to government run medicine?

[Obamanation]

Looking forward to government run medicine?

Looking forward to the partisan and unsubstantiated opposition to the ACA looking foolish when the sky doesn’t fall once the Act is fully implemented.

I love this!

The left is already trying to sell the notion that if ZEROcare doesn't fail miserably and immediately --- IT WAS A HUGE WIN!

This is so typical of everything Obama does --- any move that doesn't end the Nation is a victory for these clowns! We just set the bar a half inch off the ground and O nails the mark every time!

 

[Claudette]

Well the ACA is gonna be a trainwreck. Costly as shit. Check the CBO on it.

The only winners will be those who couldn't afford to pay for they're own HC because the rest of us will be "subsidizing" them.

Hope I'm wrong but I seriously doubt it since the Govt has never run anything cheaply or well. It turns into a monster of red tape and paperwork.

 

[TemplarKormac]

the system is going broke.

In its current form, it will be short funding. The simple solution is raising the retirement age. People are living ten years longer than they were at the program's inception. SS was never meant to support people for fifteen years. So we have a choice; leave it as is and pay more into it, or reduce the number of years people collect. The problem is that cons don't want to pay more but they also don't want to raise the retirement age. Nobody seems to want to do that even though that is the most logical solution.

What will happen to the job market for entry level positions when people work 10 years longer? How many age discrimination cases will hit the court dockets when old aged workers are dumped by their employer.

Here is a better idea, much better...

So can you explain the over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities that currently infest the Social Security Program? Solvent? Pfffft.

 

[editec]

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.


Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:

U.S.
65%

England
46%

Canada
42%



Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who
received treatment within six months:


U.S.
93%

England
15%

Canada
43%



Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received
it within six months:

U.S.
90%

England
15%

Canada
43%



Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S.
77%

England
40%

Canada
43%



Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S.
71

England
14

Canada
18



Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":

U.S.
12%

England
2%

Canada
6%



And now for the last statistic:


National Health Insurance?

U.S.
NO

England
YES

Canada
YES


Check this last set of statistics!!

The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is; a real-life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages.



T. Roosevelt....................
38%

Taft................................
40%

Wilson ...........................
52%

Harding...........................
49%

Coolidge.........................
48%

Hoover............................
42%

F. Roosevelt.....................
50%

Truman...........................
50%

Eisenhower................ ....
57%

Kennedy.........................
30%

Johnson..........................
47%

Nixon..............................
53%

Ford................................
42%

Carter.............................
32%

Reagan............................
56%

GH Bush..........................
51%

Clinton
..........................
39%

GW Bush........................
55%

Obama.............................
8%


This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration: only 8% of them have ever worked in
private business!

That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business?

How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers." They should have been in an employment line.

You really do not understand ACA, do you lad?

I can tell because you are attempting to compare socialized medicine to ACA.

You do not have to remain so ignorant, you know.


You could start here and perhaps in just a few minutes you'll know enough to know why the post you wrote above makes you look so completely clueless.

Now remember, I am NOT a fan of ACA.

But unlike you I actually KNOW WHY I don't like it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Government run retirement plans, i.e. social security, have worked out so well, why should i be the least bit concerned about them running healthcare?

Social Security has worked for 75 years. I don't see many seniors who want to give it up

Yeah? Tell that to the folks coming along who have paid in for their whole lives and will get nothing. You really need to think things through there mr. sewer worker.

You need to stop lying. Paid into it all my life, and am now drawing a good monthly check, even as I continue to work.

 

[Redfish]

the system is going broke.

In its current form, it will be short funding. The simple solution is raising the retirement age. People are living ten years longer than they were at the program's inception. SS was never meant to support people for fifteen years. So we have a choice; leave it as is and pay more into it, or reduce the number of years people collect. The problem is that cons don't want to pay more but they also don't want to raise the retirement age. Nobody seems to want to do that even though that is the most logical solution.

What will happen to the job market for entry level positions when people work 10 years longer? How many age discrimination cases will hit the court dockets when old aged workers are dumped by their employer.

Here is a better idea, much better...

I agree. The solution is to collect SS tax (FICA) on all income, not just the first 110K. SS is no longer a forced savings plan---it is a tax---and as a tax it should be collected on all income. Problem solved.

But I wonder, do you think that Pelosi, Streisand, Maher, Moore, Sarandon, Baldwin, Matthews, and all the other rich liberals will step up and "pay their fair share" ? hmmmm?

 

[Bfgrn]

In its current form, it will be short funding. The simple solution is raising the retirement age. People are living ten years longer than they were at the program's inception. SS was never meant to support people for fifteen years. So we have a choice; leave it as is and pay more into it, or reduce the number of years people collect. The problem is that cons don't want to pay more but they also don't want to raise the retirement age. Nobody seems to want to do that even though that is the most logical solution.

What will happen to the job market for entry level positions when people work 10 years longer? How many age discrimination cases will hit the court dockets when old aged workers are dumped by their employer.

Here is a better idea, much better...

So can you explain the over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities that currently infest the Social Security Program? Solvent? Pfffft.

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

WOW, you really are a Faux News brainwashed parrot. Social Security IS solvent, has over a 2 billion dollar surplus and will remain solvent until 2037.

Try to get this FACT to penetrate your brain: not one dime of the huge US deficit has been caused by a benefit check paid by Social Security, and the only parts of Medicare that are funded by general tax revenues are doctors bills and the prescription drug benefit--Medicare Part D--a lousy measure promoted by President George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress which bars the government from negotiating discounts from the Pharmaceutical companies--a problem easily fixed by improved legislation.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Regardless of the ultimate success (or lack thereof) of the ACA, the fact remains that it was written by staffers and lobbyists, signed into law by politicians who had not read it, and will be enforced by the Internal ******* Revenue Service.

Partisan Democrats have to defend it regardless of the above fact, and partisan Republicans have to attack it knowing they didn't have the guts to present a clear and reasonable alternative at the time.

This could have been done quite differently, there are already effective smaller models that could have been scaled up, but both pig-headed parties were too busy practicing rectal-cranial inversion to work together to do it.

So now both parties have to take their stand, and here comes the ACA.

Enjoy.

.

 

[Geaux4it]

ACA is an attack on civil liberties. As a Methodist, I will stand with the Bishops, however, we will not comply

-Geaux

 

[Bfgrn]

.

Regardless of the ultimate success (or lack thereof) of the ACA, the fact remains that it was written by staffers and lobbyists, signed into law by politicians who had not read it, and will be enforced by the Internal ******* Revenue Service.

Partisan Democrats have to defend it regardless of the above fact, and partisan Republicans have to attack it knowing they didn't have the guts to present a clear and reasonable alternative at the time.

This could have been done quite differently, there are already effective smaller models that could have been scaled up, but both pig-headed parties were too busy practicing rectal-cranial inversion to work together to do it.

So now both parties have to take their stand, and here comes the ACA.

Enjoy.

.

The real irony:

The architecture of the Affordable Care Act is based on conservative, not liberal, ideas about individual responsibility and the power of market forces.

This fundamental ideological paradox, drowned out by partisan shouting since before the plan’s passage in 2010, explains why Obamacare has only lukewarm support from many liberals, who wanted a real, not imagined, “government takeover of health care.” It explains why Republicans have been unable since its passage to come up with anything better. And it explains why the law is nearly identical in design to the legislation Mr. Romney passed in Massachusetts while governor.

The core drivers of the health care act are market principles formulated by conservative economists, designed to correct structural flaws in our health insurance system — principles originally embraced by Republicans as a market alternative to the Clinton plan in the early 1990s. The president’s program extends the current health care system — mostly employer-based coverage, administered by commercial health insurers, with care delivered by fee-for-service doctors and hospitals — by removing the biggest obstacles to that system’s functioning like a competitive marketplace.

Chief among these obstacles are market limitations imposed by the problematic nature of health insurance, which requires that younger, healthier people subsidize older, sicker ones. Because such participation is often expensive and always voluntary, millions have simply opted out, a risky bet emboldened by the 24/7 presence of the heavily subsidized emergency room down the street. The health care law forcibly repatriates these gamblers, along with those who cannot afford to participate in a market that ultimately cross-subsidizes their medical misfortunes anyway, when they get sick and show up in that E.R. And it outlaws discrimination against those who want to participate but cannot because of their medical histories. Put aside the considerable legislative detritus of the act, and its aim is clear: to rationalize a dysfunctional health insurance marketplace.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Regardless of the ultimate success (or lack thereof) of the ACA, the fact remains that it was written by staffers and lobbyists, signed into law by politicians who had not read it, and will be enforced by the Internal ******* Revenue Service.

Partisan Democrats have to defend it regardless of the above fact, and partisan Republicans have to attack it knowing they didn't have the guts to present a clear and reasonable alternative at the time.

This could have been done quite differently, there are already effective smaller models that could have been scaled up, but both pig-headed parties were too busy practicing rectal-cranial inversion to work together to do it.

So now both parties have to take their stand, and here comes the ACA.

Enjoy.

.

The real irony:

The architecture of the Affordable Care Act is based on conservative, not liberal, ideas about individual responsibility and the power of market forces.

This fundamental ideological paradox, drowned out by partisan shouting since before the plan’s passage in 2010, explains why Obamacare has only lukewarm support from many liberals, who wanted a real, not imagined, “government takeover of health care.” It explains why Republicans have been unable since its passage to come up with anything better. And it explains why the law is nearly identical in design to the legislation Mr. Romney passed in Massachusetts while governor.

The core drivers of the health care act are market principles formulated by conservative economists, designed to correct structural flaws in our health insurance system — principles originally embraced by Republicans as a market alternative to the Clinton plan in the early 1990s. The president’s program extends the current health care system — mostly employer-based coverage, administered by commercial health insurers, with care delivered by fee-for-service doctors and hospitals — by removing the biggest obstacles to that system’s functioning like a competitive marketplace.

Chief among these obstacles are market limitations imposed by the problematic nature of health insurance, which requires that younger, healthier people subsidize older, sicker ones. Because such participation is often expensive and always voluntary, millions have simply opted out, a risky bet emboldened by the 24/7 presence of the heavily subsidized emergency room down the street. The health care law forcibly repatriates these gamblers, along with those who cannot afford to participate in a market that ultimately cross-subsidizes their medical misfortunes anyway, when they get sick and show up in that E.R. And it outlaws discrimination against those who want to participate but cannot because of their medical histories. Put aside the considerable legislative detritus of the act, and its aim is clear: to rationalize a dysfunctional health insurance marketplace.

Dang. Well done. I usually suffer from a rare malady known as MBADD (Message Board Attention Deficit Disorder) that makes it tough for me to read longer posts, but this made sense all the way through.

Absolutely, the ACA features a total capitulation by the Democrats to market forces, but it also adds layer upon layer of massive bureaucracies, only feebly addresses the REAL problem (macro cost controls), and STILL leaves millions uncovered. The Dems did what they thought they could, but this thing is a pig.

We needed a way to control costs via diagnostic and preventive care and way to take a huge monkey (providing health care coverage) off the backs of businesses, and a universal, Medicare-For-All chassis would have accomplished that easily. Then we could mimic the current and VERY effective Medicare Supplement (not Medicare Advantage) system to allow people to increase their coverage with a wide variety of options in the free market. And the only added bureacracy would have been to hire more of what we already have to handle the increased amount of covered people. No IRS, not of that shit.

This thing is a mess. It may work, but we could have done much better.

.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What will happen to the job market for entry level positions when people work 10 years longer? How many age discrimination cases will hit the court dockets when old aged workers are dumped by their employer.

Here is a better idea, much better...

So can you explain the over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities that currently infest the Social Security Program? Solvent? Pfffft.

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

WOW, you really are a Faux News brainwashed parrot. Social Security IS solvent, has over a 2 billion dollar surplus and will remain solvent until 2037.

Try to get this FACT to penetrate your brain: not one dime of the huge US deficit has been caused by a benefit check paid by Social Security, and the only parts of Medicare that are funded by general tax revenues are doctors bills and the prescription drug benefit--Medicare Part D--a lousy measure promoted by President George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress which bars the government from negotiating discounts from the Pharmaceutical companies--a problem easily fixed by improved legislation.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

So, you throw euphamisms at me?

A realtime debt clock, showing how bloated SS has become.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[Old Rocks]

OK. So we go back to the tax rates that were in effect during the Clinton years. And add at least 5% to the high earners. Make the 6.8% we workers pay into SS go all the way up the scale. And keep the big spending Republicans like Reagan and 'W' out of high office.

 

[Bfgrn]

So can you explain the over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities that currently infest the Social Security Program? Solvent? Pfffft.

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

WOW, you really are a Faux News brainwashed parrot. Social Security IS solvent, has over a 2 billion dollar surplus and will remain solvent until 2037.

Try to get this FACT to penetrate your brain: not one dime of the huge US deficit has been caused by a benefit check paid by Social Security, and the only parts of Medicare that are funded by general tax revenues are doctors bills and the prescription drug benefit--Medicare Part D--a lousy measure promoted by President George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress which bars the government from negotiating discounts from the Pharmaceutical companies--a problem easily fixed by improved legislation.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

So, you throw euphamisms at me?

A realtime debt clock, showing how bloated SS has become.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Not one dime of the huge US deficit has been caused by a benefit check paid by Social Security.

It is solvent until 2037.

 

[Bfgrn]

.

Regardless of the ultimate success (or lack thereof) of the ACA, the fact remains that it was written by staffers and lobbyists, signed into law by politicians who had not read it, and will be enforced by the Internal ******* Revenue Service.

Partisan Democrats have to defend it regardless of the above fact, and partisan Republicans have to attack it knowing they didn't have the guts to present a clear and reasonable alternative at the time.

This could have been done quite differently, there are already effective smaller models that could have been scaled up, but both pig-headed parties were too busy practicing rectal-cranial inversion to work together to do it.

So now both parties have to take their stand, and here comes the ACA.

Enjoy.

.

The real irony:

The architecture of the Affordable Care Act is based on conservative, not liberal, ideas about individual responsibility and the power of market forces.

This fundamental ideological paradox, drowned out by partisan shouting since before the plan’s passage in 2010, explains why Obamacare has only lukewarm support from many liberals, who wanted a real, not imagined, “government takeover of health care.” It explains why Republicans have been unable since its passage to come up with anything better. And it explains why the law is nearly identical in design to the legislation Mr. Romney passed in Massachusetts while governor.

The core drivers of the health care act are market principles formulated by conservative economists, designed to correct structural flaws in our health insurance system — principles originally embraced by Republicans as a market alternative to the Clinton plan in the early 1990s. The president’s program extends the current health care system — mostly employer-based coverage, administered by commercial health insurers, with care delivered by fee-for-service doctors and hospitals — by removing the biggest obstacles to that system’s functioning like a competitive marketplace.

Chief among these obstacles are market limitations imposed by the problematic nature of health insurance, which requires that younger, healthier people subsidize older, sicker ones. Because such participation is often expensive and always voluntary, millions have simply opted out, a risky bet emboldened by the 24/7 presence of the heavily subsidized emergency room down the street. The health care law forcibly repatriates these gamblers, along with those who cannot afford to participate in a market that ultimately cross-subsidizes their medical misfortunes anyway, when they get sick and show up in that E.R. And it outlaws discrimination against those who want to participate but cannot because of their medical histories. Put aside the considerable legislative detritus of the act, and its aim is clear: to rationalize a dysfunctional health insurance marketplace.

Dang. Well done. I usually suffer from a rare malady known as MBADD (Message Board Attention Deficit Disorder) that makes it tough for me to read longer posts, but this made sense all the way through.

Absolutely, the ACA features a total capitulation by the Democrats to market forces, but it also adds layer upon layer of massive bureaucracies, only feebly addresses the REAL problem (macro cost controls), and STILL leaves millions uncovered. The Dems did what they thought they could, but this thing is a pig.

We needed a way to control costs via diagnostic and preventive care and way to take a huge monkey (providing health care coverage) off the backs of businesses, and a universal, Medicare-For-All chassis would have accomplished that easily. Then we could mimic the current and VERY effective Medicare Supplement (not Medicare Advantage) system to allow people to increase their coverage with a wide variety of options in the free market. And the only added bureacracy would have been to hire more of what we already have to handle the increased amount of covered people. No IRS, not of that shit.

This thing is a mess. It may work, but we could have done much better.

.

I remember when the debate over a public option was going on. The idea of "Medicare for everybody" makes perfect sense. If you were under 65, you'd paying pay for it. You wouldn't have to buy it.

 

[auditor0007]

the system is going broke.

In its current form, it will be short funding. The simple solution is raising the retirement age. People are living ten years longer than they were at the program's inception. SS was never meant to support people for fifteen years. So we have a choice; leave it as is and pay more into it, or reduce the number of years people collect. The problem is that cons don't want to pay more but they also don't want to raise the retirement age. Nobody seems to want to do that even though that is the most logical solution.

What will happen to the job market for entry level positions when people work 10 years longer? How many age discrimination cases will hit the court dockets when old aged workers are dumped by their employer.

Here is a better idea, much better...

That is another option. My suggestion is not for anyone to work an extra ten years, although many are choosing to do so these days. In reality, if you are 50 or younger, your full retirement age is now 67. I would only suggest increasing that to 70, leaving those who choose to retire at 67 with a reduced benefit, the same as they do now for those who choose to retire before their full retirement age.

The point is that there are a number of realistic solutions to fix the shortfall. We just need to make a choice and get it done. The reason I tend to lean toward increasing the retirement age is that Medicare faces an even larger problem, and it's going to take a lot more tax dollars to fix it compared to SS. Raising the retirement age for Medicare from the current 65 to 70 would cut cost substantially. The other thing it does is brings more money into the system as people are paying in longer.

As for what happens to those trying to enter the job market if people continue to work longer, I don't see it as a problem. When people are working longer, they will spend more, the economy will grow, and there will be enough jobs for everyone. The biggest reason the economy can't seem to gain any traction is that the baby boomers quit spending money, in part due to the fact so may lost their asses when the market crashed, but also just because they don't have as much reason to spend.

 

[auditor0007]

.

Regardless of the ultimate success (or lack thereof) of the ACA, the fact remains that it was written by staffers and lobbyists, signed into law by politicians who had not read it, and will be enforced by the Internal ******* Revenue Service.

Partisan Democrats have to defend it regardless of the above fact, and partisan Republicans have to attack it knowing they didn't have the guts to present a clear and reasonable alternative at the time.

This could have been done quite differently, there are already effective smaller models that could have been scaled up, but both pig-headed parties were too busy practicing rectal-cranial inversion to work together to do it.

So now both parties have to take their stand, and here comes the ACA.

Enjoy.

.

The real irony:

The architecture of the Affordable Care Act is based on conservative, not liberal, ideas about individual responsibility and the power of market forces.

This fundamental ideological paradox, drowned out by partisan shouting since before the plan’s passage in 2010, explains why Obamacare has only lukewarm support from many liberals, who wanted a real, not imagined, “government takeover of health care.” It explains why Republicans have been unable since its passage to come up with anything better. And it explains why the law is nearly identical in design to the legislation Mr. Romney passed in Massachusetts while governor.

The core drivers of the health care act are market principles formulated by conservative economists, designed to correct structural flaws in our health insurance system — principles originally embraced by Republicans as a market alternative to the Clinton plan in the early 1990s. The president’s program extends the current health care system — mostly employer-based coverage, administered by commercial health insurers, with care delivered by fee-for-service doctors and hospitals — by removing the biggest obstacles to that system’s functioning like a competitive marketplace.

Chief among these obstacles are market limitations imposed by the problematic nature of health insurance, which requires that younger, healthier people subsidize older, sicker ones. Because such participation is often expensive and always voluntary, millions have simply opted out, a risky bet emboldened by the 24/7 presence of the heavily subsidized emergency room down the street. The health care law forcibly repatriates these gamblers, along with those who cannot afford to participate in a market that ultimately cross-subsidizes their medical misfortunes anyway, when they get sick and show up in that E.R. And it outlaws discrimination against those who want to participate but cannot because of their medical histories. Put aside the considerable legislative detritus of the act, and its aim is clear: to rationalize a dysfunctional health insurance marketplace.

Dang. Well done. I usually suffer from a rare malady known as MBADD (Message Board Attention Deficit Disorder) that makes it tough for me to read longer posts, but this made sense all the way through.

Absolutely, the ACA features a total capitulation by the Democrats to market forces, but it also adds layer upon layer of massive bureaucracies, only feebly addresses the REAL problem (macro cost controls), and STILL leaves millions uncovered. The Dems did what they thought they could, but this thing is a pig.

We needed a way to control costs via diagnostic and preventive care and way to take a huge monkey (providing health care coverage) off the backs of businesses, and a universal, Medicare-For-All chassis would have accomplished that easily. Then we could mimic the current and VERY effective Medicare Supplement (not Medicare Advantage) system to allow people to increase their coverage with a wide variety of options in the free market. And the only added bureacracy would have been to hire more of what we already have to handle the increased amount of covered people. No IRS, not of that shit.

This thing is a mess. It may work, but we could have done much better.

.

Without a doubt, taking healthcare out of employer's hands would have been the ultimate and most logical solution. The problem would be much the same as we have now; some people would claim it unconstitutional to make it illegal for employers to provide health insurance. Of course, most employers would love such a system as the burden would be off of their backs.

That is exactly what was done in Switzerland. While the ACA may show some similarities to the Swiss healthcare system, it is very different. In Switzerland, they made it so everyone has to purchase their own healthcare on the private market. The government subsidizes those who have lower earnings and those on welfare. Insurers cannot make any profit on the basic plan, and the basic plans are all very similar, covering most preventative care. Where insurers can make a profit is in their supplemental plans which the vast majority of people purchase.

The best thing about the Swiss system is that individuals must purchase their own insurance. There are only three rate levels based on age. The thing that is so empowering about it is that everyone actually understands how much health care costs as they must pay for it themselves. One of the biggest problems with our system is that employers pay the bulk of their employees health insurance premiums, so most people really have no clue what the costs really are. These employees are also fooled into believing they actually have a "choice" which is the furthest thing from the truth. In the Swiss system, people have all kinds of choices, here in the US, employers tell you what you can have when it comes to health insurance, because they only have a couple of plans to offer. In some cases, they only have one plan to offer.

Yea, we could have done much better. Unfortunately, there were too many people happy to support the status quo.

 

[Harry Dresden]

In its current form, it will be short funding. The simple solution is raising the retirement age. People are living ten years longer than they were at the program's inception. SS was never meant to support people for fifteen years. So we have a choice; leave it as is and pay more into it, or reduce the number of years people collect. The problem is that cons don't want to pay more but they also don't want to raise the retirement age. Nobody seems to want to do that even though that is the most logical solution.

What will happen to the job market for entry level positions when people work 10 years longer? How many age discrimination cases will hit the court dockets when old aged workers are dumped by their employer.

Here is a better idea, much better...

That is another option. My suggestion is not for anyone to work an extra ten years, although many are choosing to do so these days. In reality, if you are 50 or younger, your full retirement age is now 67. I would only suggest increasing that to 70, leaving those who choose to retire at 67 with a reduced benefit, the same as they do now for those who choose to retire before their full retirement age.

The point is that there are a number of realistic solutions to fix the shortfall. We just need to make a choice and get it done. The reason I tend to lean toward increasing the retirement age is that Medicare faces an even larger problem, and it's going to take a lot more tax dollars to fix it compared to SS. Raising the retirement age for Medicare from the current 65 to 70 would cut cost substantially. The other thing it does is brings more money into the system as people are paying in longer.

As for what happens to those trying to enter the job market if people continue to work longer, I don't see it as a problem. When people are working longer, they will spend more, the economy will grow, and there will be enough jobs for everyone. The biggest reason the economy can't seem to gain any traction is that the baby boomers quit spending money, in part due to the fact so may lost their asses when the market crashed, but also just because they don't have as much reason to spend.

your full retirement age is now 67. I would only suggest increasing that to 70,

so what about the people with physical jobs that break the body down,for some of them even working till your 65 would be unrealistic....unless you want to be a cripple........not all of us sit on our asses all day long....

 

[rightwinger]

What will happen to the job market for entry level positions when people work 10 years longer? How many age discrimination cases will hit the court dockets when old aged workers are dumped by their employer.

Here is a better idea, much better...

That is another option. My suggestion is not for anyone to work an extra ten years, although many are choosing to do so these days. In reality, if you are 50 or younger, your full retirement age is now 67. I would only suggest increasing that to 70, leaving those who choose to retire at 67 with a reduced benefit, the same as they do now for those who choose to retire before their full retirement age.

The point is that there are a number of realistic solutions to fix the shortfall. We just need to make a choice and get it done. The reason I tend to lean toward increasing the retirement age is that Medicare faces an even larger problem, and it's going to take a lot more tax dollars to fix it compared to SS. Raising the retirement age for Medicare from the current 65 to 70 would cut cost substantially. The other thing it does is brings more money into the system as people are paying in longer.

As for what happens to those trying to enter the job market if people continue to work longer, I don't see it as a problem. When people are working longer, they will spend more, the economy will grow, and there will be enough jobs for everyone. The biggest reason the economy can't seem to gain any traction is that the baby boomers quit spending money, in part due to the fact so may lost their asses when the market crashed, but also just because they don't have as much reason to spend.

your full retirement age is now 67. I would only suggest increasing that to 70,

so what about the people with physical jobs that break the body down,for some of them even working till your 65 would be unrealistic....unless you want to be a cripple........not all of us sit on our asses all day long....

If you have a physical job that you can't do till you are 70, I would suggest you invest heavily in a 401k as well as other investments. In addition, you might want to learn some skills that would make you employable in your later years.

If not, you can always be a WalMart greeter in your 70s.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yeah? Tell that to the folks coming along who have paid in for their whole lives and will get nothing. You really need to think things through there mr. sewer worker.

I haven't met any of those people. Neither have you

My gosh but you're an ignorant ****. The people you claim to have not met are right next door. Instead of toeing the party line, open your damned eyes why don't you.


"This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office."



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html?_r=0

No, he is not ignorant. He is STUPID.