US without Medicare and Social Security

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-09-11 06:41pm

A thread inspired this, where the cost of Medicare and Social Security had been raised. Now Medicare and Social Security take a big hunk of money and I was wondering, would the US economy be far more powerful and dynamic if it had the funds freed from going into these social programs, essentially making us a lean and mean Capitalist machine or would the hit to families that now had to support their elderly parents and the sick take a bigger hit on US taxpayers if we did not have these programs essentially making things worse?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-11 06:48pm

Quite probably. The sheer amount of our tax dollars that vanish into those programs is staggering. Adding that to the economy would certainly help tremendously. Cycling money through government is always a net loss simply due to the nature of government. Social Security and it's ilk hold entirely true to the pattern.

And no, I don't think we'd be swamped with elderly dependents. It's entirely possible with judicious savings and investment to retire comfortably and at a reasonable age provided they managed their money right.

And social security isn't enough to live off anyway. Like all public assistance programs it falls short of sustenance level.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-11 06:50pm

And of course the worst of Social Securitie's ills is yet to come. When the Baby Boomers hit retirement age Social Security is quite literally going to bankrupt the government unless we accept a tax burden from 60% to 80% depending on how the economy does. The problem is it's the world's largest pyramid scam and with our generation the pyramid shrinks and we're screwed.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-09-11 07:05pm

Here ya go Storm....

Nor is this the worst that can happen. Under the pessimistic forecast, the future Social Security tax burden will be almost twice its current level and the elderly will spend more than $2 of Medicare money each year for every $1 they receive in Social Security checks. Workers will have to pay almost half of their earnings just to fund benefits already promised the elderly under current law. Put another way, under the pessimistic forecast, we have already pledged more than half the income of future workers without regard to any personal needs they workers and their families may have and without regard to the need to fund any other government program!

This is going to be bad......

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-09-11 07:20pm

Stormbringer wrote:And no, I don't think we'd be swamped with elderly dependents. It's entirely possible with judicious savings and investment to retire comfortably and at a reasonable age provided they managed their money right.

And damn all those already in a situation they couldn't sustain without it, huh? A harsh reality of this decision.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-09-11 07:22pm

In order to repeal these programs, you'd need to go through Congress, right? And voting to repeal Social Security and Medicare would be political suicide, I imagine, even if it was a gradual phase-out program.

Who's bright idea was this, btw?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-09-11 07:24pm

SirNitram wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:And no, I don't think we'd be swamped with elderly dependents. It's entirely possible with judicious savings and investment to retire comfortably and at a reasonable age provided they managed their money right.
And damn all those already in a situation they couldn't sustain without it, huh? A harsh reality of this decision.

You have to wonder this: if you knew there was no such thing as Social Security, would you not plan more and save more for the future? I know that no one can live on SS alone (My dad unfortunately is in such a boat) but have we in effect created an expectation in people of being taken care of?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-09-11 07:24pm

Just to note: Using the only data I found reliable and recent, 25% of the nation is on Medicare(Note: This is from the CDC's surveying, if anyone has more accurate numbers, hit me). Anyone want to guess the effect of 1 out of every four people being without health care?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-09-11 07:25pm

HemlockGrey wrote:In order to repeal these programs, you'd need to go through Congress, right? And voting to repeal Social Security and Medicare would be political suicide, I imagine, even if it was a gradual phase-out program.

Who's bright idea was this, btw?

Its a hypothetical situation. If trillions were not going into SS and Medicare woudl the US economy be more robust powerful and resilient. Would we need such high tax burdens. Imagine your paychecks without the Social Securoty tax. I know I do everytime I get mine.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-09-11 07:26pm

Stravo wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:And no, I don't think we'd be swamped with elderly dependents. It's entirely possible with judicious savings and investment to retire comfortably and at a reasonable age provided they managed their money right.
And damn all those already in a situation they couldn't sustain without it, huh? A harsh reality of this decision.
You have to wonder this: if you knew there was no such thing as Social Security, would you not plan more and save more for the future? I know that no one can live on SS alone (My dad unfortunately is in such a boat) but have we in effect created an expectation in people of being taken care of?

Certainly have in this state. I daresay even with the jobs the elderly hold down here, WV will suffer tremendously if SS is repealed. Medicare/Mediaid being removed will just kill off the twitching body.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-11 07:30pm

SirNitram wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:And no, I don't think we'd be swamped with elderly dependents. It's entirely possible with judicious savings and investment to retire comfortably and at a reasonable age provided they managed their money right.
And damn all those already in a situation they couldn't sustain without it, huh? A harsh reality of this decision.

No, in fact I'm personally in favor of a stringent means test before anyone seems a dime of medicare and social security money and only the most needy getting anything. But the fact the situation as is isn't sustainable and it's only going get worse. When half a person's income is going to support non-productive segements of the populations somethings wrong. Very, very wrong.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-09-11 07:34pm

No, Stravo, I meant who came up with Medicare and Social Security? When was it implemented?

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-09-11 07:35pm

Of course, most people will protest any attempt to repeal Social Security.

Instead of "Think of the children!" their message will be "Think of our grandparents!". Then they could get away with anything, sinking the economy included.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-09-11 07:35pm

HemlockGrey wrote:No, Stravo, I meant who came up with Medicare and Social Security? When was it implemented?

FDR, I think.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-09-11 07:37pm

HemlockGrey wrote:No, Stravo, I meant who came up with Medicare and Social Security? When was it implemented?

FDR instituted the SS security system in response to the horrible conditions during the Great Depression.

LBJ as part of his Great Society created Medicare and Medicaid to provide some basic healthcare to those that could not afford it.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-11 07:38pm

A morbid question; a very common occurence, a tradition really, every other Friday if I speak to my father that day is the usual bitch about his paycheck. Usually, this entails him going point for point down his pay stub complaining about the myriad of numbers between what he made that pay period and what he actually receives. Social security is a particular gripe of his. While the total that has gone to social security varies depending on how self-righteous he is feeling that day, a very large sum of money has gone to social security. He wants that money back, loudly and at length, because he figures that money is rightly his. Now here's the question. Out of the plans that exist to phase out social security, how is he going to get his money back? Will it be "Sorry mate, we are getting rid of social security, so those thousands of dollars that you've been putting into it for years and years is all gone. You're boned, goodnight." or will people get their money back? Or what about a cut of date, social security is gone, but anyone who's been putting money before the date that it was cut off will have it honored?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-11 07:39pm

SirNitram wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:And no, I don't think we'd be swamped with elderly dependents. It's entirely possible with judicious savings and investment to retire comfortably and at a reasonable age provided they managed their money right.
And damn all those already in a situation they couldn't sustain without it, huh? A harsh reality of this decision.

Not really. Sell off unused federal assets and buy annuities for those forced into dependency on the system, and let everyone else invest as they please.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-09-11 07:40pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:A morbid question; a very common occurence, a tradition really, every other Friday if I speak to my father that day is the usual bitch about his paycheck. Usually, this entails him going point for point down his pay stub complaining about the myriad of numbers between what he made that pay period and what he actually receives. Social security is a particular gripe of his. While the total that has gone to social security varies depending on how self-righteous he is feeling that day, a very large sum of money has gone to social security. He wants that money back, loudly and at length, because he figures that money is rightly his. Now here's the question. Out of the plans that exist to phase out social security, how is he going to get his money back? Will it be "Sorry mate, we are getting rid of social security, so those thousands of dollars that you've been putting into it for years and years is all gone. You're boned, goodnight." or will people get their money back? Or what about a cut of date, social security is gone, but anyone who's been putting money before the date that it was cut off will have it honored?

Fucked part of that Gil is that its not HIS money, that money is currently paying benefits of the CURRENT SS beneficiaries and YOU will end up paying your dad's benefits and so on. I find it a cruel joke that not only are you taking money out of my check to pay for SS benefits but they're not even MINE?!

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-11 07:44pm

Gil, the problem is Social Security is the world's largest pyramid scam. It needs a constantly increasing tax base just to pay off the previous contributors. And now we've hit the classic problem of all such scam's recruitment is down.

So like all money paid into scams, your dad, and any one who paid in but isn't collecting SS now, isn't likely to get much if any of his money back.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-11 07:45pm

Stravo wrote:Fucked part of that Gil is that its not HIS money, that money is currently paying benefits of the CURRENT SS beneficiaries and YOU will end up paying your dad's benefits and so on. I find it a cruel joke that not only are you taking money out of my check to pay for SS benefits but they're not even MINE?!

It's the world's largest pyramid scam Stravo. The only difference is it's Uncle Sam cheating us.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-11 07:50pm

Stravo wrote:Fucked part of that Gil is that its not HIS money, that money is currently paying benefits of the CURRENT SS beneficiaries and YOU will end up paying your dad's benefits and so on. I find it a cruel joke that not only are you taking money out of my check to pay for SS benefits but they're not even MINE?!

Pfffft. Then I've been misinformed about what social security entails. I thought the theory behind SS was that you put money into it, and when you retired, that money was given back in payments to help support you.

It's a good thing that the vast majority of my income is under-the-table and thus, um, not taxable, so I'm a little less incensed that I might be.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-11 07:54pm

Pfffft. Then I've been misinformed about what social security entails. I thought the theory behind SS was that you put money into it, and when you retired, that money was given back in payments to help support you.

On the contrary. The Supreme Court ruled that the government is under no obligation to repay you a damn thing.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-11 07:57pm

Durran Korr wrote:On the contrary. The Supreme Court ruled that the government is under no obligation to repay you a damn thing.

That's blowful.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-09-11 08:10pm

Of course, it's also worth noting the immediate and definate inflation that would appear from this money suddenly surging into the mainstream.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-11 08:35pm

How about cleaning it up instead of destroying it and expecting people to fend for themselves, which a great society does not do?

The American medicaid system has per-capita administrative costs roughly THREE TIMES those of the Canadian system. The maxim that governments are always less efficient is not always supported by fact. Why? Corruption, waste, and the fact that health providers have to deal with a small galaxy of insurers in America, while they only have to deal with one, and with relatively miniscule paperwork, in Canada. And that's not even including the phenomenal cost of medical litigation in the US.

There are lots of ways to cut down on the cost of Medicaid without scrapping it.