If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mercatus Center) Interesting #Occupy Their Lawn might be the move, what with the bluehairs soaking up half the federal budget in two decades' time   (mercatus.org) divider line 45
More: Interesting, federal budget, social security, medicare, Rugy, United States budget process, Mercatus Center, unemployment compensation  
•       •       •

1127 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Dec 2011 at 1:14 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



45 Comments   (+0 »)
   
 
2011-12-21 07:17:25 AM
those two programs have their own funding. their own separate withholding. they aren't a part of the normal federal tax budget. you could tweak the cap on Soc Security and make those earnings above (what is it now about 120k?) taxable and fix it easily. medicare could also be tweaked a bit to make it more solvent. but it's not half the normal federal budget. that would be defense.
 
2011-12-21 07:24:41 AM
Getting a bulk discount on Medicare drugs would be an excellent place to begin, but we'd have to out-bribe the pharmaceutical companies for that to happen.
 
2011-12-21 08:02:37 AM
Both of the above comments are great, and I'd like to add only two words at this point:

Means testing.
 
2011-12-21 10:10:20 AM
Maybe we need to start #Occupy Ice Floe, if you get my drift.

/Also in favor of means testing. If I am fortunate enough not to need it if my financial planning is sound, then I don't expect anyone to hand it to me.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2011-12-21 10:29:34 AM
That's true. We need a single payer health care system so we can get those costs under control.
 
2011-12-21 10:54:28 AM
vpb: That's true. We need a single payer health care system so we can get those costs under control.

That's it, let the the people who've done such a splendid job with defense, education and economics call the shots on health care, too.

Better only catch diseases that do well in polls.
 
2011-12-21 11:15:41 AM
Gulper Eel: vpb: That's true. We need a single payer health care system so we can get those costs under control.

That's it, let the the people who've done such a splendid job with defense, education and economics call the shots on health care, too.

Better only catch diseases that do well in polls.


Can't do worse than the for-profit health care insurers have, that's for sure.
 
2011-12-21 11:20:26 AM
Nabb1: Maybe we need to start #Occupy Ice Floe, if you get my drift.
.


It would also address the problem of the polar bears' food stocks.

It really is a win-win.
 
2011-12-21 12:11:19 PM
SurfaceTension: Can't do worse than the for-profit health care insurers have, that's for sure.

Indeed we can do worse - and do.

The guy Obama appointed to run Medicare for the past year or so figured Medicare is wasting 20-30% of its budget. Couple hundred billion dollars a year. This is to be expected in a system biased in favor of paying claims, no matter how wasteful or fraudulent.

As money-grubbing sonsabiatches, private insurers are biased against approving wasteful claims as bad for the bottom line. This causes well-documented trouble, but flipping their model on its head is no improvement.

Single-payer works in nations with strong traditions of honesty and competence in government. You know, like Norway and...and...er.

At least when a private insurer farks people over, I as an evil capitalist can invest in the private insurer and make some money off that. When the federal government farks people over, I as a crony capitalist can make money off it too - but first I have to buy a bunch of legislators and that's shiatloads more expensive than stocks, and then I have to share my ill-gotten gains with Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner even after I bought them fair and square.
 
2011-12-21 12:28:50 PM
Gulper Eel: The guy Obama appointed to run Medicare for the past year or so figured Medicare is wasting 20-30% of its budget. Couple hundred billion dollars a year.

So, that means it's exactly as good as private companies that only spend 70% or so of their income on actual patient care? Not bad for a supposedly completely inefficient government bureaucracy.
 
2011-12-21 01:29:02 PM
Hmmm...I knew the author's name sounded familiar: Link (new window)

So, "let 'em die!" and turn 'em into soylent green? Will that be next week's Reason column by Veronique? Sorry, I just don't trust these farkers.who are looking for any excuse to eliminate medicare and Social Security.
 
2011-12-21 01:29:11 PM
Gulper Eel: SurfaceTension: Can't do worse than the for-profit health care insurers have, that's for sure.

Indeed we can do worse - and do.

The guy Obama appointed to run Medicare for the past year or so figured Medicare is wasting 20-30% of its budget. Couple hundred billion dollars a year. This is to be expected in a system biased in favor of paying claims, no matter how wasteful or fraudulent.

As money-grubbing sonsabiatches, private insurers are biased against approving wasteful claims as bad for the bottom line. This causes well-documented trouble, but flipping their model on its head is no improvement.

Single-payer works in nations with strong traditions of honesty and competence in government. You know, like Norway and...and...er.

At least when a private insurer farks people over, I as an evil capitalist can invest in the private insurer and make some money off that. When the federal government farks people over, I as a crony capitalist can make money off it too - but first I have to buy a bunch of legislators and that's shiatloads more expensive than stocks, and then I have to share my ill-gotten gains with Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner even after I bought them fair and square.


s3.amazonaws.com
 
2011-12-21 01:33:25 PM
Marcus Aurelius: Getting a bulk discount on Medicare drugs would be an excellent place to begin, but we'd have to out-bribe the pharmaceutical companies for that to happen.

But but but corporations are people too
 
2011-12-21 01:36:53 PM
Hobodeluxe: those two programs have their own funding. their own separate withholding. they aren't a part of the normal federal tax budget.

Both of which are running deficits. Social Security for the past two years. Medicare for a long time now. The last Republicans (Congress and Bush) made the Medicare problem worse with the prescription drug plan.

Hobodeluxe: you could tweak the cap on Soc Security and make those earnings above (what is it now about 120k?) taxable and fix it easily.

And probably make it unconstitutional in the process. It's a defined benefit, so there has to be a cap on collection. If you remove the limit on contributions, you'd have to uncap the payout side, too.

Hobodeluxe: medicare could also be tweaked a bit to make it more solvent.

Tax health benefits for retirees that pay more than Medicare as regular income.

Hobodeluxe: but it's not half the normal federal budget. that would be defense.

It's a little more than half of discretionary spending, which, in turn, is just over half the entire Federal budget. IOW, ~25& of the total for defense. And a not insignificant chunk of that is things like retiree benefits; if you offload all that to the VA, it'd look a lot different.
 
2011-12-21 01:38:45 PM
How about we let the greedy, selfish, environment-ruining, bank-saving, foreign-war starting sons of biatches have their just deserts and die off?

/Sick of paying for your Viagra through medicare
//Especially because you won't retire so I can get a job to do it
 
2011-12-21 01:39:36 PM
hurdboy: And probably make it unconstitutional in the process.

*citation needed*
 
2011-12-21 01:45:31 PM
Well then I guess we'd better do something about this.

And yes, cutting SS/Medicare or privatizing them is NOT an option.
 
2011-12-21 01:48:26 PM
Medicare is paid into by you and your employer from the moment you start working until the day you retire. There is also a Medicare premium that is required for the 80% insurance once you are on Medicare.

Insurance you pay into for your entire working life that can't be used until you are 65 and even then you have to pay $100.00 per month for 80% co-insurance.
 
2011-12-21 01:49:05 PM
cc_rider: Sorry, I just don't trust these farkers.who are looking for any excuse to eliminate medicare and Social Security.

B-but we're supposed to have a NEST EGG by the time we become eligible!! GUBBAMINT HANDOUTS OH NOES.
 
2011-12-21 01:51:59 PM
Nabb1: Maybe we need to start #Occupy Ice Floe, if you get my drift.

/Also in favor of means testing. If I am fortunate enough not to need it if my financial planning is sound, then I don't expect anyone to hand it to me.


My problem with means testing is that it makes a program less for all Americans and more for those people, not me. Once something becomes something that only benefits "other" people, it becomes easier and easier to whittle it away, easier and easier to whip up opposition to it.
 
2011-12-21 01:53:20 PM
Twenty somethings

...generation debt
 
2011-12-21 01:57:00 PM
Hobodeluxe: those two programs have their own funding. their own separate withholding. they aren't a part of the normal federal tax budget. you could tweak the cap on Soc Security and make those earnings above (what is it now about 120k?) taxable and fix it easily. medicare could also be tweaked a bit to make it more solvent. but it's not half the normal federal budget. that would be defense.

You really have no farking idea what you are talking about. Medicare pays out more than it pays in already. SS was paying out more than it took in last year. Removing the caps does nothing as the caps affect both pay in and pay out. You don't want republicans to start saying you want to end SS now do you?
 
2011-12-21 01:57:36 PM
Marcus Aurelius: Getting a bulk discount on Medicare drugs would be an excellent place to begin, but we'd have to out-bribe the pharmaceutical companies for that to happen.

That just shifts costs to other consumers. It's like liberals don't even try to understand how economies work.
 
2011-12-21 01:57:43 PM
netcentric: Twenty somethings

...generation debt


Generation spoiled.
 
2011-12-21 01:58:50 PM
vpb: That's true. We need a single payer health care system so we can get those costs under control.

Yes, medicare costs are so under control...

mercatus.org
 
2011-12-21 01:59:33 PM
MyRandomName: Marcus Aurelius: Getting a bulk discount on Medicare drugs would be an excellent place to begin, but we'd have to out-bribe the pharmaceutical companies for that to happen.

That just shifts costs to other consumers. It's like liberals don't even try to understand how economies work.


Unless the cost is infinitely elastic, they can't infinitely "shift costs to other consumers". And if it is, it's a textbook example of total market failure. It's like conservatives don't even try to understand how economies work.
 
2011-12-21 02:00:01 PM
MyRandomName: Medicare pays out more than it pays in already. SS was paying out more than it took in last year.

Citation?
 
2011-12-21 02:00:31 PM
MyRandomName: vpb: That's true. We need a single payer health care system so we can get those costs under control.

Yes, medicare costs are so under control...

[mercatus.org image 500x386]


Gee, honey, do you have that chart for private insurers? Or adjusted for inflation? Preferably both?
 
2011-12-21 02:00:44 PM
MyRandomName: vpb: That's true. We need a single payer health care system so we can get those costs under control.

Yes, medicare costs are so under control...


How does the medical industry's inflated costs have anything to do with whether we should have public programs like single payer or Medicare?
 
2011-12-21 02:02:17 PM
MyRandomName: vpb: That's true. We need a single payer health care system so we can get those costs under control.

Yes, medicare costs are so under control...

[mercatus.org image 500x386]


You realize the chart is showing a projected 2040?
 
2011-12-21 02:04:08 PM
GAT_00: hurdboy: And probably make it unconstitutional in the process.

*citation needed*


You can be absolutely certain it'd be the first thing litigated. It's been a long time since I helped write a brief on it. (and I don't have a copy of LaTeX on a machine anywhere around here to review the final document.....if the ancient CD-R it's stored on is still readable...). Nobody wants to even consider switching to something other than a defined benefit system. Would be bad news for many widows and widowers receiving benefits at their deceased spouse's benefit level. (Unfortunately, I say that with personal knowledge.....)

That said, uncapping the excise tax on the employer would be fine (the so-called "employer contribution"). But that's not what the uncap bobbleheads are talking about when they shoot their mouths off about it.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2011-12-21 02:05:30 PM
Gulper Eel: vpb: That's true. We need a single payer health care system so we can get those costs under control.

That's it, let the the people who've done such a splendid job with defense, education and economics call the shots on health care, too.

Better only catch diseases that do well in polls.


There is some bizarre new spin.

Because the for profit corporations running things now are so wonderful, I guess?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2011-12-21 02:16:22 PM
Gulper Eel: SurfaceTension: Can't do worse than the for-profit health care insurers have, that's for sure.

Indeed we can do worse - and do.

The guy Obama appointed to run Medicare for the past year or so figured Medicare is wasting 20-30% of its budget. Couple hundred billion dollars a year. This is to be expected in a system biased in favor of paying claims, no matter how wasteful or fraudulent.

As money-grubbing sonsabiatches, private insurers are biased against approving wasteful claims as bad for the bottom line. This causes well-documented trouble, but flipping their model on its head is no improvement.

Single-payer works in nations with strong traditions of honesty and competence in government. You know, like Norway and...and...er.

At least when a private insurer farks people over, I as an evil capitalist can invest in the private insurer and make some money off that. When the federal government farks people over, I as a crony capitalist can make money off it too - but first I have to buy a bunch of legislators and that's shiatloads more expensive than stocks, and then I have to share my ill-gotten gains with Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner even after I bought them fair and square.


Another straw man argument. Just Google "Medicare fraud arrest". If you have any Idea what you are talking about you won't get any results.

It is amazing that anyone would trust their health care to a for-profit industry that is based on insuring only healthy people and avoiding treating sick people.

I wonder if you would want a military which wouldn't fight pre-existing enemies?
 
2011-12-21 02:16:47 PM
rnld: MyRandomName: vpb: That's true. We need a single payer health care system so we can get those costs under control.

Yes, medicare costs are so under control...

[mercatus.org image 500x386]

You realize the chart is showing a projected 2040?


What, you're saying you can't project costs based on two data points? ;-)
 
2011-12-21 02:45:31 PM
Gulper Eel: That's it, let the the people who've done such a splendid job with defense, education and economics call the shots on health care, too.

Better only catch diseases that do well in polls.


the same people that are in charge of defense so good we have to go abroad to find people to kill and that's what the military does don't let anyone lie to you, they make dead bodies, and efficiently, how many illiterate people do you run into in a given day, and not illiterate because they hung out and did drug but did not have access to a school. we are not the #1 economy on the planet and richest nations every because everyone else sucks.

Also the same people that will possibly run your healthcare built a farking space ship, sent a probe outside of the solar system and ran a robot on another planet for over a year.

Thru the NIH, FDA, CDC, Health and human services, the US government already runs your healthcare, get over it
 
2011-12-21 03:13:02 PM
PUNISH [$var] BY VOTING REPUBLICAN!!
 
2011-12-21 04:51:03 PM
FTA: These trends are not sustainable. For years, the federal government has used the tax money collected for Social Security for other spending. As a result, politicians didn't have to borrow as much as they would have, if they hadn't had access to Social Security money. But that's no reason to claim that Social Security payments going forward are not going to increase the deficit. They will. If payments don't decrease, it will be because taxpayers get taxed for benefits all over again.

There's a false equivalence in this paragraph. It is saying that "If payments don't decrease, taxpayers will pay twice for Social Security because the first payment was stolen by Congress in lieu of borrowing."

Yet isn't it more equivalent to say that "If payments don't decrease, taxpayers will be forced to repay all the stolen funding from Social Security that was used in lieu of borrowing"?

IN OTHER WORDS: SOCIAL SECURITY WILL HAVE TO BE DECREASED BECAUSE CONGRESS DIDN'T WANT TO RAISE TAXES FOR SERVICES PROVIDED.
 
2011-12-21 04:51:39 PM
(Capslock is cruise control for cool)
 
2011-12-21 05:16:56 PM
Gulper Eel: At least when a private insurer farks people over, I as an evil capitalist can invest in the private insurer and make some money off that.

Yes, well, it's all fun and games until your private insurer denies your medically necessary kidney transplant for no reason.

Can't spend your evil capitalist bucks when you're dead.
 
2011-12-21 06:10:38 PM
A single man who earns the average wage throughout his career ($43,100 in 2010 dollars), works every year from age 22 to 64, and then retires at age 65 in 2010. Over his lifetime he has paid $345,000 into the system. But he is likely to get back $72,000 more than that, or $417,000 in Social Security and Medicare payouts.

Is there a claim that over more than 40 years, US Treasuries wouldn't have earned $72K?
 
2011-12-22 12:16:13 AM
Just a bubble.
 
2011-12-22 03:04:13 AM
Gulper Eel: vpb: That's true. We need a single payer health care system so we can get those costs under control.

That's it, let the the people who've done such a splendid job with defense, education and economics call the shots on health care, too.

Better only catch diseases that do well in polls.


I'm currently working for the military overseas. If you are holding up the US defense organization as an example of a failed goverment program, you are either post-lobotomy, or a cat who got extremely lucky while walking over a keyboard.
 
2011-12-22 07:37:07 AM
WaitWhatWhy: I'm currently working for the military overseas. If you are holding up the US defense organization as an example of a failed goverment program, you are either post-lobotomy, or a cat who got extremely lucky while walking over a keyboard.

But all my nuanced progressive friends of superior intellect and thoughtfulnesss have told me for years what a horrifying bunch of neocon imperialist Bushbot crony-capitalist fraud enablers you are, and how Defense needs a good slashing (while Medicare is just peachy the way it is, and never you mind that it's bleeding like an emo Romanov).

Could they perchance be wrong?

/snark

Any program of sufficient size carries with it the seeds of its own failure, because around it grows a culture of meeting not the goals of the program, but the goals of its bureaucracy and the contractors who make a buck off it. Defense, health care, education...no exceptions.

This is how we get congressmembers waxing melodramatic whenever an obsolete base in their district is slated for closure - they don't look at it in terms of its usefulness to defense. They look at it as a jobs/vote-buying program.
 
2011-12-22 08:33:36 AM
Gulper Eel: WaitWhatWhy: I'm currently working for the military overseas. If you are holding up the US defense organization as an example of a failed goverment program, you are either post-lobotomy, or a cat who got extremely lucky while walking over a keyboard.

But all my nuanced progressive friends of superior intellect and thoughtfulnesss have told me for years what a horrifying bunch of neocon imperialist Bushbot crony-capitalist fraud enablers you are, and how Defense needs a good slashing (while Medicare is just peachy the way it is, and never you mind that it's bleeding like an emo Romanov).

Could they perchance be wrong?

/snark

Any program of sufficient size carries with it the seeds of its own failure, because around it grows a culture of meeting not the goals of the program, but the goals of its bureaucracy and the contractors who make a buck off it. Defense, health care, education...no exceptions.

This is how we get congressmembers waxing melodramatic whenever an obsolete base in their district is slated for closure - they don't look at it in terms of its usefulness to defense. They look at it as a jobs/vote-buying program.


Lol, that last statement is fair enough. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing a lot of our military spending cut or redirected, include the program I work for. I think the problem is that in cultures which value profit over everything else, any program will eventually become about the goals of the bureaucracy and contractors, starting wiht the large, easy targets. I don't think that having a large program in and of itself creates this culture. As far as the military, it's a tool, and it has been used horribly irresponsibly by those in charge. but it's one of the best, most functional, most efficent tools/programs in the history of the world. I'm out here because I dislike seeing people get blown up, and while I can't stop the war directly, I can prevent both Afghans and Americans from getting blown up.

/Never voted for Bush.
 
2011-12-22 04:05:14 PM
Obviously we just arn't spending enough on other things to keep the percentage at or near the 20% it was back in the 70's. We could fix this if we only had the will to do so!!
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »