whistleridge: Democrats refuse to consider entitlement reform at all.
whistleridge: It's true: raising Medicare eligibility alone probably wouldn't do much. But including it in a package of entitlement reforms that included:* aligning social security and medicare eligibility* raising social security eligibility to 70, or indexing eligibility to life expectancy* raising the payroll tax cap from 84% to 90% or even 95% of earnings* phasing out social security and medicare benefits for high income retirees* indexing COLA adjustments to prices rather than wages for all but the bottom third of beneficiaries* raising the payroll tax 1%Would do a lot. There are a slew of studies that have indicated that these reforms would absolutely fix most or all of the problems. The only barrier is that Republicans refuse to even consider tax hikes, and Democrats refuse to consider entitlement reform at all. And so we limp along.
bulldg4life: entitlement reform
Elzar: Thank god we don't have to deal with communist healthcare schemes like Canada - those farkers lose 81.6% of their income to taxes and they still can't serve fries properly.
Peter von Nostrand: Using something you earned is an entitlementOnly toUnless you're a bootstrappy Republicans
Kibbler: I read something this week (can't remember where, maybe it was The Week) that said, with a straight face, that we need to cut entitlements so that we can expand "needed" defense spending. Seriously.I hope the citizens of this country aren't as detached and flabby and gullible as they've appeared, because we're really need to going to stand up and say "no" when they try to push this crap through again. They will push "defense" spending to $2 trillion a year, and "family farm" subsidies to $1 trillion a year, and eliminate literally everything else, if we let them.
Dusk-You-n-Me: whistleridge: Democrats refuse to consider entitlement reform at all.We should be so lucky.
Peter von Nostrand: Using something you earned is an entitlementOnly to bootstrappy Republicans
AntiNerd: This. Just like they didn't want to be called "soft on terror" by Fox News so they voted for every idiotic military adventure anyone ever thought of, they also want to be called "serious" so they have to go on cable news and talk about "putting entitlement reform on the table."And you never hear them say -- even though they must know it -- that cutting Social Security will absolutely not help the deficit in any way.
mediablitz: There are other ways to look at this, including lowering the age, but no one wants to think about ANYTHING but savings by limitation.
RealityChuck: Raising the age won't do much because you remove the healthiest people from the system. Lowering the age OTOH, would add more healthy people to the system, thus driving down costs.
bulldg4life: If the GOP proposed massive defense cuts and a repeal of specific bush tax cuts and cap gains tax raises, they could get huge reforms to Medicare.
whistleridge: phasing out social security and medicare benefits for high income retirees
wraith95: Do we really want to keep senior citizens in the workforce longer? How much would such reforms cost in terms of unemployment?
whistleridge: RealityChuck: Raising the age won't do much because you remove the healthiest people from the system. Lowering the age OTOH, would add more healthy people to the system, thus driving down costs.Yes and no. Expanding the risk pool = a good idea. Tweaking the eligibility of the program = adjusting administrative costs.Before you lace into me, here's what I mean.If ACA covers everyone, then Medicare should basically become a special seniors only tier of that structure. Under that setup, raising the age wouldn't make a difference because the risk pools wouldn't change, only the program sizes.If ACA doesn'tcover everyone, then yes, it makes absolute sense to lower the age to expand the risk pool. In fact, it would make the most sense to lower it right down to zero, and achieve single-payer by default. Stopping anywhere short would just be wasting money.
flucto: And given that there's no insurance for seniors other than Medicare, how would that work? They'd just be out of pocket for 100% of costs?
ClavellBCMI: The one thing I ran the strike-through though is the only thing I disagree with, raising the eligibility age to 70 is NOT an answer, mainly because NO employer is going to keep someone employed past 65 years of age unless they are required to BY LAW. Hell, getting an employer to keep ANYONE past the age of 60 is a miracle in and of itself! And while we are at it, get the Government to stop adding the FICA tax revenue to the general fund! That, in and of itself, would do a great deal to solving the approaching insolvency of the Social Security Trust Fund.
BMFPitt: So we'd spend less per person, but make it up on volume?
Target Builder: Eliminate the payroll cap. Problem solved. You're welcome.
sprawl15: yes that is how pooling risk works
o5iiawah: So tax people more and make it harder for them to draw benefits. Eventually the payroll tax will be 35% of your income and if you're lucky enough to live past 85, you get a free apartment and a meals-on-wheels delivery
whistleridge: Annnnd YOUR fallacy is...*spins wheel*...THE SLIPPERY SLOPE!
If you like these links, you'll love
More Fark for your buck
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Feb 25 2018 07:18:03
Runtime: 0.482 sec (481 ms)