Actually, they do collect this money... so there's that, because we don't means test SS. If we did, it would be solvent.
No, the problem with SS is the same as all other programs. We don't fund it. If people want to keep these programs, we need to pay for them, and no, I don't mean have other people pay for them for us.
I haven't seen a Medicare contribution increase in I don't know how long. Yet care gets more expensive every year, and most of the care is given to senior citizens. Of course these programs can't survive in the long run.
And they get most of the benefits. Who do you think benefits the most from our bloated military budget? The Oil Companies, mostly. The defense contracts who sell expensive planes that can't fly in the rain.
So you don't use any oil products?
How many manufacturers make military aircraft?
Guy, I hate to break this to you, but pretty much that is how hiring is done. Even though this is how I make my living, most people are hired on the basis of a resume someone else wrote, and two interviews were both sides are lying their asses off.
Frankly, to be fair, we spend a lot more time selecting our politicians. We spend months interviewing them through debates and campaign appearences. And mostly, we get it right. Except in 2016, where the people got it right and the system got it wrong.
All those interviews and reporting doesn't do any good if most don't read or listen to them. And half of what the MSM reports is crap anyhow. So dopes go to the polls and vote on people for a number of other reasons. And any company that hires people not on their past performance but on personality won't be in business very long. It would be a failed model. Any real interviewer can see right through a resume made by somebody else.
Um, yeah, guy, maybe you should look up "Literacy Tests" in the Old South and see why those happened. Oh, wait, they told you at your Klan meeting that those were the "Good Old Days".
The good old days didn't have access to free public education. People quit school like my father did in 8th grade to help support the family. They didn't have advanced communication like smart phones, cable television and the internet.
There is no reason today for an ignorant voter except laziness or lack of interest, and the Democrat party relies on both of those groups of people to win elections. That's why they would never allow it.
I agree SS contributions should increase. If we don't, the choice is SS either goes the Medicare Route with government funding the difference between contributions and benefits paid or benefits are cut 25% to equal contributions. This will occur in the 2040's if nothing changes.
The government already funds Medicare, to the tune of 275 billion in 2015 and it increase every year.
There're two Medicare trust funds, the Hospital Insurance Fund which pays hospital bills (Part A) and the Supplemental Fund (Part B and Part D).
The Hospital Insurance Fund is funded by payroll contributions. The last increase in contributions was in 1985. It has balance of 205 billion. It's expenditures exceed income by about 3 to 5 billion, so it will probably not need an increase in payroll contributions for some years. BTW this was Medicare until the 1960's when congress expanded Medicare to include Part B which includes medical expenses other than hospital costs.
The Supplemental Insurance Fund is the problem. It pays for doctor visits, drugs, and all other medical expenses other than hospital costs. It is a voluntary option, called Part B of Medicare. Part D covering drugs was added in 2005. It is funded by contributions from beneficiaries who choose this coverage. It pays roughly 80% of covered expenses and beneficiary pays 20%. It's funded by monthly payments by beneficiaries and transfers from the general fund.
In 2015, the general fund transfers were 272 billion and payments by beneficiaries were 82 billion to the Supplemental Fund.
The concept of the Hospital Insurance Fund is similar to Social Security, the workers pay into the fund to defray cost when they retire. The Supplemental Fund is totally different. It's a system of sharing medical costs of the retired and disabled between beneficiaries and goverment. Expenses of the Supplemental Fund are more than twice that of the Hospital Fund and growing rapidly.
I believe we need to gradually raise retirement age and Medicare eligibility age to 70 over the new 20 years. This will not totally solve the funding problem with either S.S. or Medicare but it will certain help. It will also help relieve a growing shortage in the labor force. Right now we have 3 million jobs openings and we are adding hundreds of thousands of new jobs a year. Also, our birthrate is almost equal to our death rate and is falling. We are retiring 10,000 people a day and will for many years. If the nation is to continue to grow we have to have more workers. That can come from much higher immigration rates, which doesn't seem likely or we spend more of our life working and less in retirement.
That's all fine and dandy and has been suggested before. The problem is that many can't make it to 65 now.
Do you want to see the guy bussing tables carrying heavy trays of dishes and glasses doing that job at 68? What about a roofer? Want to see an old man climb a ladder two stories high with bundles of shingles on his shoulders? How about a bricklayer or laborer? Can you see a 68 year old guy carrying clamps of bricks to the job site or mixing cement? What about a garbage man? The list goes on and on.
I have two cousins, each run their own remodeling business. They are in their early 60's now and tell me how every day is pain and suffering because they have to work. All that hammering, sawing, dragging heavy equipment in and out of houses takes a real toll on the body. It was great in their 20's. 30's and 40's, but not now. Hell, I'll even take my own career as an example. In a heavy snow shower, do you want to be the guy in front of me when I'm piloting a 75,000 lbs vehicle and we suddenly have to hit the breaks to stop on the highway?
So we make this new requirement, and all these people end up on disability if they are even accepted. If not, go homeless and find a way to eat. I'm sorry, but it's not the answer.
So why don't we just increase employee contributions to support these wonderful programs? Because if people knew what they actually cost, there would be a movement to get rid of them and depend on private insurance in the future. The Democrats want nothing to do with that because you can't buy votes that way. They wouldn't be able to tell people all the things Republicans want to take away from them if voted into power.
(seriously, you have GOT to tone down the melodrama).
