US without Medicare and Social Security

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-11 08:43pm

Of course there are Mike, but it's a political third rail. So much as touch and your political career is finished. It's why despite the known crunch no one has done a damn thing about it.

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

Stormbringer wrote:Of course there are Mike, but it's a political third rail. So much as touch and your political career is finished. It's why despite the known crunch no one has done a damn thing about it.

So? Kneecapping the litigation and replacing HMOs with national health insurance is more politically feasible than scrapping Medicaid entirely.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-11 09:15pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Of course there are Mike, but it's a political third rail. So much as touch and your political career is finished. It's why despite the known crunch no one has done a damn thing about it.
So? Kneecapping the litigation and replacing HMOs with national health insurance is more politically feasible than scrapping Medicaid entirely.

That's the thing. Dems will fight to the death to prevent tort reform, Republicans will fight to the death to prevent nat'l health care.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-09-11 09:18pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Of course there are Mike, but it's a political third rail. So much as touch and your political career is finished. It's why despite the known crunch no one has done a damn thing about it.
So? Kneecapping the litigation and replacing HMOs with national health insurance is more politically feasible than scrapping Medicaid entirely.

I don't think anyone here is seriously calling for an end to Medicaid or even Social Security. This is more of an analysis of how social programs can have an effect on a nation's economy. My father would be starving to death and have no medical care for his heart consdition were it not for these programs so I am a big fan, but I also recognize the drain these programs have and like you would like some form of massive reform, a shakeup, anything to make it less of a drain.

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

I can't say much about SS but if we did away with Medicare/Medicaid I would expect that we'd have an even bigger national healthcare problem.

Currently hospitals are required to take and treat all patients whether they can pay or not. I would guess that there'd be even fewer patient's with insurance if there wasn't Medicare. As it is Medicare only reimburses for so much and then they don't pay anymore and the hospital has to eat it. HMOs and other types of insurance have caught on to this and they no longer reimburse for as much as they used to. So I think that if Medicare was just stopped it would through the US healthcare system into a major major economic crisis.

Considering my hospital gets plenty of dumbasses and illegals who are uninsured as it is I don't want to see Medicare dropped until there is some sensible alternative.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-11 10:15pm

Darth Wong wrote:So? Kneecapping the litigation and replacing HMOs with national health insurance is more politically feasible than scrapping Medicaid entirely.

Not much more so, maybe less. If you haven't noticed politicions aren't exactly known for their visionary performance. Most would be happy to ride the system down in flames so long as they keep their seat.

I'm not opposed to national health, I'm just opposed to implementing wasteful, bloated system that's going to siphon my wallet dry to no benefit to me.

And I'm not opposed to Social Security, just the wasteful bloated system it is. With diminishing returns and growing costs it's a monster that's out of control. Within my lifetime the current system will be requiring fifty percent of my income (exclusive of any other taxes) to provide for the baby boomers. And I'm not likely to get more than a tenth of that back.

I'm all for a Social Security system that works. But if the scrapping it's the only way I'll be keep my own money, I'd scrap it with out hesitation. That sort of system would be ruinous to me and everyone else.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-09-12 01:31am

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.

Oh really? Care to provide the basis for this nice little surmise beyond "wishful thinking" and the assumption of perfect conditions and perfect behaviour?

And of course the worst of Social Security'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.

Well, that's all very nice and doctrinaire, but like a lot of nice and doctrinaire things it's also bullshit. Pyramid schemes come with no legal guarantee, no means of enforcing the terms of said scheme, and no security backing the investment. Unless you're simply going to stand there and liken the government to a criminal enterprise, which is moronically simplistic in the extreme.

The other thing that strikes me is how so many of the arguments for dispensing with Social Security turn on the false dilemma of "either scrap it now or face utter ruination later" and also on the ludricous assumption that not only can nothing be done to adjust the system, but that nothing will be done and the whole thing simply allowed to collapse.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-09-12 11:12am

Patrick Degan wrote:Well, that's all very nice and doctrinaire, but like a lot of nice and doctrinaire things it's also bullshit. Pyramid schemes come with no legal guarantee, no means of enforcing the terms of said scheme, and no security backing the investment. Unless you're simply going to stand there and liken the government to a criminal enterprise, which is moronically simplistic in the extreme.

Its financially unsustainable, thus its going to crack and none of us are going to see the money. If it looks like a pyramid scheme, acts like a pyramid scheme, its probably a pyramid scheme.

And about legal protection, I believe Durron was concise:

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

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-12 04:03pm

Oh really? Care to provide the basis for this nice little surmise beyond "wishful thinking" and the assumption of perfect conditions and perfect behaviour?

I'm saying if people are intelligent then they can survive with out Social Security which doesn't cover basic needs anyways. Of course if people are stupid and squander their money they're going to be screwed.

Well, that's all very nice and doctrinaire, but like a lot of nice and doctrinaire things it's also bullshit. Pyramid schemes come with no legal guarantee, no means of enforcing the terms of said scheme, and no security backing the investment. Unless you're simply going to stand there and liken the government to a criminal enterprise, which is moronically simplistic in the extreme.

You realize that the government is under no legal obligation to repay so much as one cent of the money paid into social security? That sounds like no legal guarantee to me. We know the federal government can't pay for the difference between what we paid in and what stand to get; no security there.

It might not be a pyramid scam but damn if it isn't doing an incredible impersonation of one.

The other thing that strikes me is how so many of the arguments for dispensing with Social Security turn on the false dilemma of "either scrap it now or face utter ruination later" and also on the ludricous assumption that not only can nothing be done to adjust the system, but that nothing will be done and the whole thing simply allowed to collapse.

Saying those are the only two options is a false dilemna. But I'm not arguing that. I'm say that in it's present form Social Security will ruin us. The option to reform it is there but it won't be for much longer.

Given the fact that neither side has undertaken any meaningful reform of the system is cause to worry. We've got a decade or two at best before the program goes tits up and takes the US government and economy with it. So unless reform comes soon those will be the only two options.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-09-12 04:20pm

I'm surprised no one's thinking about the economic effect of no more SS and Medicare/Medicaid. Everyone here does know what happens when a sudden flood of money enters circulation, right?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-12 04:22pm

SirNitram wrote:I'm surprised no one's thinking about the economic effect of no more SS and Medicare/Medicaid. Everyone here does know what happens when a sudden flood of money enters circulation, right?

Yes, but that doesn't really apply here. Unless I'm missing something.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-09-12 04:23pm

Durran Korr wrote:
SirNitram wrote:I'm surprised no one's thinking about the economic effect of no more SS and Medicare/Medicaid. Everyone here does know what happens when a sudden flood of money enters circulation, right?
Yes, but that doesn't really apply here. Unless I'm missing something.

How would the demonstrated effects of massive amounts of money flowing into circulation not apply in a case where we will be dumping trillions back into the flow?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-12 04:25pm

SirNitram wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:
SirNitram wrote:I'm surprised no one's thinking about the economic effect of no more SS and Medicare/Medicaid. Everyone here does know what happens when a sudden flood of money enters circulation, right?
Yes, but that doesn't really apply here. Unless I'm missing something.
How would the demonstrated effects of massive amounts of money flowing into circulation not apply in a case where we will be dumping trillions back into the flow?

Well, the question was asked what happens if we didn't have these programs implying they'd never been created or had been phased out. Not, poof they're gone.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-09-12 04:26pm

Stormbringer wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
Durran Korr wrote: Yes, but that doesn't really apply here. Unless I'm missing something.
How would the demonstrated effects of massive amounts of money flowing into circulation not apply in a case where we will be dumping trillions back into the flow?
Well, the question was asked what happens if we didn't have these programs implying they'd never been created or had been phased out. Not, poof they're gone.

Ah. But now it's a wholly different beast, as I daresay the US would have changed signifigantly without it, and the current economy wouldn't be the same.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-12 04:29pm

SirNitram wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:
SirNitram wrote:I'm surprised no one's thinking about the economic effect of no more SS and Medicare/Medicaid. Everyone here does know what happens when a sudden flood of money enters circulation, right?
Yes, but that doesn't really apply here. Unless I'm missing something.
How would the demonstrated effects of massive amounts of money flowing into circulation not apply in a case where we will be dumping trillions back into the flow?

Where would these trillions come from? This is probably something real obvious I'm missing.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-09-12 04:35pm

Durran Korr wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
Durran Korr wrote: Yes, but that doesn't really apply here. Unless I'm missing something.
How would the demonstrated effects of massive amounts of money flowing into circulation not apply in a case where we will be dumping trillions back into the flow?
Where would these trillions come from? This is probably something real obvious I'm missing.

I was under the impression we were talking about removing it now.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-12 04:40pm

What trillions? The Social Security Trust Fund has no real assets in in, only a bunch of IOUs. The government spends most FICA social security revenue on current recipients, and instead on taking the remainder and putting it in the trust fund, it wastes it on stupid bullshit. In other words, the government spends the money and promises to spend it again later. Medicare, likewise, has a deficit. So ending Social Security and Medicare wouldn't really release trillions of dollars into the economy.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-09-12 04:49pm

Durran Korr wrote:What trillions? The Social Security Trust Fund has no real assets in in, only a bunch of IOUs. The government spends most FICA social security revenue on current recipients, and instead on taking the remainder and putting it in the trust fund, it wastes it on stupid bullshit. In other words, the government spends the money and promises to spend it again later. Medicare, likewise, has a deficit. So ending Social Security and Medicare wouldn't really release trillions of dollars into the economy.

Durran, stop and think about the money no longer being deducted from all those paychecks.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-12 04:51pm

Durran, stop and think about the money no longer being deducted from all those paychecks.

Yes, I realize that. But the money is not taken out of circulation as you claim it is. It's merely taken by the government and spent elsewhere.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-12 06:16pm

Gil Hamilton wrote: 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.

That is a wildly held myth, that SS is a savings plan. Its not, and simply putting your money in the bank would give you a significantly higher return anyway.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-12 07:24pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote: 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.
That is a wildly held myth, that SS is a savings plan. Its not, and simply putting your money in the bank would give you a significantly higher return anyway.

The estimated ROR on Social Security, as I recall is only around 2 percent.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2003-09-12 07:40pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote: 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.
That is a wildly held myth, that SS is a savings plan. Its not, and simply putting your money in the bank would give you a significantly higher return anyway.

Is there a state-encouraged superannuation scheme in America? Here in Australia our SS programs have the same problems as those of America, so the government in encouraging increased personal responsibility towards retirment. With varied success... an MP gets his voluntary superannuation contributions multiplied by the government *7* times.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-12 07:49pm

Durran Korr wrote:
The estimated ROR on Social Security, as I recall is only around 2 percent.

I've only ever seen 1% being thrown around.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-12 07:50pm

Nope, Social Security is all we have here in the U.S. Although some states do have their own differing plans, though (Galveston, Texas, privatised Social Security in the 70s, I think).

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-12 07:55pm

Durran Korr wrote:That is a wildly held myth, that SS is a savings plan. Its not, and simply putting your money in the bank would give you a significantly higher return anyway.

The estimated ROR on Social Security, as I recall is only around 2 percent.[/quote]
That beats most savings accounts and even some money market accounts, actually.