|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 7, 2014 19:40:22 GMT
Well, the only "limitations" placed upon medical reimbursements, by my own plan (a PPO), are these--well, is this: The procedure must be generally accepted practice by medical professionals in the US. If this is the case--and if it is not a purely cosmetic procedure--the insurance will pay. (And even if it is cosmetic, the insurance will pay under certain circumstances; as, for instance, if one is badly disfigured through an accident.) I really do not think that it is "wild partisan speculation" or something close to "a conspiracy theory" to suggest that a board that has been created for the express purpose of reining in healthcare costs is likely to wind up rationing healthcare. In fact, that is precisely the case in Canada and throughout Europe, where healthcare rationing is already occurring. (I have read numerous horror stories from Britain, as regarding the NIH.)
I like your PPO coverage but think about it. Republicans wouldn't approve that for government provided health care would they?
When it comes to the purpose of the IPAB we're not in dispute but only as it applies to Medicare and even then, as you pointed out, the IPAB will not refuse "treatment" but could select between two different type of treatment and I seriously doubt that they could deny a significantly superior treatment option based upon the cost of the treatment.
Let me provide an anecdotal analogy. I'm being treated by the VA for high triglycerides. I was taking an expensive medication for it that my private doctor prescribed but when the VA started covering it the VA pharmacist informed me that another medication made the one I was using for triglycerides ineffective and changed me to high dosages of fish oil. I'm no expert but we'll find out of the "far less expensive" fish oil is effective when I have my blood work done in October. If it's not then the VA is going to have to furnish the more expensive medication.
I believe the IPAB is going to face that same problem. If the treatment they authorize isn't as effective they're going to be forced to fund the more expensive treatment. If they are equally effective then the IPAB will limit the choice to the least expensive treatment.
It's my opinion that the "monster" doesn't exist.
BTW Did you catch the article that the CBO has now determined there is no way to calculate if the 2009 projected savings of $120 billion over ten years for "Obamacare" is accurate. The Obama Adminstration's delays in implementation to the employer mandate screwed up any possible way for the CBO to run any cost/benefit calculations so they've now said, "We don't have a clue and can't figure it out anymore."
I always believed the "projected savings" were mythical. Our government has always proven that whatever it does costs more than the projected costs.
No, I didn't catch that piece of information; which is somewhat surprising, since I am something of a news junkie. (By the way, I thoroughly agree that the government just about always places the rosiest face possible on anything. And the Obama administration has been especially inclined to do this, in order to sell ObamaCare to just enough legislators to get it through Congress in March 2010.) Oh, and I thoroughly agree that less-expensive medications can sometimes be just as effective. Generics are a very good example of this: By law, they must be medically identical to their name-brand counterparts--including even the binder, so that they dissolve in the system at the very same rate. And I have found that generic Prilosec (omeprazole) works just as well to suppress my heartburn as Nexium does--for only about $2 or $3 for a 90-day supply, instead of a $70 copay for 90 days. (It is my understanding that the active ingredient in omeprazole is not quite as strong as the active ingredient in Nexium is; but, just as one can kill a fly with either a nuclear bomb or a flyswatter, I can kill my own heartburn with either Nexium or generic omeprazole; and, in both cases, the latter seems like the better choice.) I sincerely hope you are correct about the IPAB's being "forced" to fund the more effective treatment, if the less-expensive treatment turns out to be less effective also. But I am seriously concerned that it will attempt, instead, to suggest that other factors led to all the resulting deaths; and that it will appoint a blue-ribbon commission to look into it, issue a white paper (well, I guess that takes care of a couple of colors), and otherwise "study" the issue to death. After all, the more quickly older Americans pass away, the fewer Social Security checks the government will have to issue--and less in the way of Medicare reimbursements--so the annual deficit will not be quite so ghastly... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 8, 2014 11:02:30 GMT
No, I didn't catch that piece of information; which is somewhat surprising, since I am something of a news junkie. (By the way, I thoroughly agree that the government just about always places the rosiest face possible on anything. And the Obama administration has been especially inclined to do this, in order to sell ObamaCare to just enough legislators to get it through Congress in March 2010.) Oh, and I thoroughly agree that less-expensive medications can sometimes be just as effective. Generics are a very good example of this: By law, they must be medically identical to their name-brand counterparts--including even the binder, so that they dissolve in the system at the very same rate. And I have found that generic Prilosec (omeprazole) works just as well to suppress my heartburn as Nexium does--for only about $2 or $3 for a 90-day supply, instead of a $70 copay for 90 days. (It is my understanding that the active ingredient in omeprazole is not quite as strong as the active ingredient in Nexium is; but, just as one can kill a fly with either a nuclear bomb or a flyswatter, I can kill my own heartburn with either Nexium or generic omeprazole; and, in both cases, the latter seems like the better choice.) I sincerely hope you are correct about the IPAB's being "forced" to fund the more effective treatment, if the less-expensive treatment turns out to be less effective also. But I am seriously concerned that it will attempt, instead, to suggest that other factors led to all the resulting deaths; and that it will appoint a blue-ribbon commission to look into it, issue a white paper (well, I guess that takes care of a couple of colors), and otherwise "study" the issue to death. After all, the more quickly older Americans pass away, the fewer Social Security checks the government will have to issue--and less in the way of Medicare reimbursements--so the annual deficit will not be quite so ghastly...
Here's the link to the story that the CBO has dropped it's predictions on Obamacare.
finance.yahoo.com/news/cbo-quietly-drops-forecast-obamacare-180500918.html
What I find both humorous as well as false in the story is the statement that the forecast that Obamacare would reduce the deficits by $120 billion over ten years was a major selling point. That was only a forecast of a $12 billion/yr average reduction in federal spending to begin with and even a small economic sneeze can affect the federal budget more than that. I don't think anyone took that projection seriously to begin with and it certainly wasn't a "major selling point" of Obamacare IMO. Obamacare passed because the Democrats in Congress supported it and the "$120 billion savings" was just propaganda for the people.
There is always a remote possibility that a government panel or committee can "go rogue" (and some have historically) but to claim one is going to do so well in advance of it ever doing anything is really fearmongering.
Of course if the IPAB was to "go rogue" with extremism in it's control of Medicare benefits to save money and that resulted in premature deaths of seniors resulting in deficit reduction we would assume Republicans would support it. Just think how much money the federal government saved because of the average 45,000 Americans dying prematurely due to a lack of insurance saved the federal government in Social Security benefits. Republicans opposed doing anything to prevent those 45,000 people from dying annually. We see this in other legislation as well because the whole point of raising the retirement age for Social Security is to have more people die so they don't collect benefits at all or for as long.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 8, 2014 18:14:30 GMT
No, I didn't catch that piece of information; which is somewhat surprising, since I am something of a news junkie. (By the way, I thoroughly agree that the government just about always places the rosiest face possible on anything. And the Obama administration has been especially inclined to do this, in order to sell ObamaCare to just enough legislators to get it through Congress in March 2010.) Oh, and I thoroughly agree that less-expensive medications can sometimes be just as effective. Generics are a very good example of this: By law, they must be medically identical to their name-brand counterparts--including even the binder, so that they dissolve in the system at the very same rate. And I have found that generic Prilosec (omeprazole) works just as well to suppress my heartburn as Nexium does--for only about $2 or $3 for a 90-day supply, instead of a $70 copay for 90 days. (It is my understanding that the active ingredient in omeprazole is not quite as strong as the active ingredient in Nexium is; but, just as one can kill a fly with either a nuclear bomb or a flyswatter, I can kill my own heartburn with either Nexium or generic omeprazole; and, in both cases, the latter seems like the better choice.) I sincerely hope you are correct about the IPAB's being "forced" to fund the more effective treatment, if the less-expensive treatment turns out to be less effective also. But I am seriously concerned that it will attempt, instead, to suggest that other factors led to all the resulting deaths; and that it will appoint a blue-ribbon commission to look into it, issue a white paper (well, I guess that takes care of a couple of colors), and otherwise "study" the issue to death. After all, the more quickly older Americans pass away, the fewer Social Security checks the government will have to issue--and less in the way of Medicare reimbursements--so the annual deficit will not be quite so ghastly...
Here's the link to the story that the CBO has dropped it's predictions on Obamacare.
finance.yahoo.com/news/cbo-quietly-drops-forecast-obamacare-180500918.html
What I find both humorous as well as false in the story is the statement that the forecast that Obamacare would reduce the deficits by $120 billion over ten years was a major selling point. That was only a forecast of a $12 billion/yr average reduction in federal spending to begin with and even a small economic sneeze can affect the federal budget more than that. I don't think anyone took that projection seriously to begin with and it certainly wasn't a "major selling point" of Obamacare IMO. Obamacare passed because the Democrats in Congress supported it and the "$120 billion savings" was just propaganda for the people.
There is always a remote possibility that a government panel or committee can "go rogue" (and some have historically) but to claim one is going to do so well in advance of it ever doing anything is really fearmongering.
Of course if the IPAB was to "go rogue" with extremism in it's control of Medicare benefits to save money and that resulted in premature deaths of seniors resulting in deficit reduction we would assume Republicans would support it. Just think how much money the federal government saved because of the average 45,000 Americans dying prematurely due to a lack of insurance saved the federal government in Social Security benefits. Republicans opposed doing anything to prevent those 45,000 people from dying annually. We see this in other legislation as well because the whole point of raising the retirement age for Social Security is to have more people die so they don't collect benefits at all or for as long.
Your assertion that Republicans want seniors to die prematurely is reminiscent of the Democrats' talking points as regarding the desire to push granny off a cliff. And the assertion that a desire for premature death is the real reason why Republicans do not support UHC is--well, really grsaping at straws... I think the major selling point for ObamaCare was its promise to reduce expenditures, for the average family, by about $2,500 annually. Of course, that has not happened; healthcare-insurance costs have continued to increase. About all the supporters of ObamaCare can offer, in rebuttal, is the assertion that healthcare-insurance costs are rising more slowly than they had been in the past. And even if causation could be proven here--and that is rather problematical, at best--it (intentionally, I believe) attempts to circumvent the point that healthcare-insurance costs have not decreased, as promised. And it hardly strikes me as "fearmongering" to suggest that a committee that is part and parcel of a plan (i.e. ObamaCare) whose core function is to rein in healthcare costs is very likely to do precisely that; and that the most effective way to accomplish this would be to scrimp on healthcare. (Instead of approving expensive surgery that might extend an 88-year-old great grandmother's life for, say, six more months at most, why not just give her palliative care--such as medication to control her pain? Or so the reasoning--make that, the rationalization--is likely to go.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 9, 2014 12:50:23 GMT
Your assertion that Republicans want seniors to die prematurely is reminiscent of the Democrats' talking points as regarding the desire to push granny off a cliff. And the assertion that a desire for premature death is the real reason why Republicans do not support UHC is--well, really grsaping at straws... I think the major selling point for ObamaCare was its promise to reduce expenditures, for the average family, by about $2,500 annually. Of course, that has not happened; healthcare-insurance costs have continued to increase. About all the supporters of ObamaCare can offer, in rebuttal, is the assertion that healthcare-insurance costs are rising more slowly than they had been in the past. And even if causation could be proven here--and that is rather problematical, at best--it (intentionally, I believe) attempts to circumvent the point that healthcare-insurance costs have not decreased, as promised. And it hardly strikes me as "fearmongering" to suggest that a committee that is part and parcel of a plan (i.e. ObamaCare) whose core function is to rein in healthcare costs is very likely to do precisely that; and that the most effective way to accomplish this would be to scrimp on healthcare. (Instead of approving expensive surgery that might extend an 88-year-old great grandmother's life for, say, six more months at most, why not just give her palliative care--such as medication to control her pain? Or so the reasoning--make that, the rationalization--is likely to go.)
Well, tens of millions of uninsured with a study that established 45,000 people dying because of it and STILL NO PLAN by Republicans to stop it.... technically we can't say Republicans support people dying to save a few bucks. We can't dispute the fact that raising the benefit ages for Social Security isn't about having people die to save a few bucks though. That is supported by some Democrats and all Republicans that I'm aware of.
The $2,500/family "savings" was always mythical because that was a savings at some day in the future based upon theoretical possible increases in the costs of health insurance to the "family" based upon government subsidies and other factors. Basically the premise for the claim was "if family health insurance costs $5,000 today and rises to $10,000 then it would have risen to $12,500 without Obamacare." It wasn't a claim that costs would go down but instead that they won't go up "as much." I knew it was BS and you probably knew it was BS to begin with.
Actually the best way to rein in costs IMO is to increase payments to primary care physicians so they will treat the patients as opposed to referring them to the specialists because the primary care physicians aren't paid enough to treat them now. It could also put some limits on things like "personal mobility scooters" that are way over-priced "Cadillacs" that people get for free where the companies are raping the federal government on pricing.
The IPAB does not have authority to intervene in the decision on whether the 88 yo can have the surgery but only if the medical procedure is authorized. For examply it can authorize or deny kidney transplants but it cannot make a decision related to a specific patient related to whether they should have a kidney transplant if kidney transplants are authorized. It addresses procedures, treatments, medications, and medical devices and not individual cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 9, 2014 19:03:15 GMT
Your assertion that Republicans want seniors to die prematurely is reminiscent of the Democrats' talking points as regarding the desire to push granny off a cliff. And the assertion that a desire for premature death is the real reason why Republicans do not support UHC is--well, really grsaping at straws... I think the major selling point for ObamaCare was its promise to reduce expenditures, for the average family, by about $2,500 annually. Of course, that has not happened; healthcare-insurance costs have continued to increase. About all the supporters of ObamaCare can offer, in rebuttal, is the assertion that healthcare-insurance costs are rising more slowly than they had been in the past. And even if causation could be proven here--and that is rather problematical, at best--it (intentionally, I believe) attempts to circumvent the point that healthcare-insurance costs have not decreased, as promised. And it hardly strikes me as "fearmongering" to suggest that a committee that is part and parcel of a plan (i.e. ObamaCare) whose core function is to rein in healthcare costs is very likely to do precisely that; and that the most effective way to accomplish this would be to scrimp on healthcare. (Instead of approving expensive surgery that might extend an 88-year-old great grandmother's life for, say, six more months at most, why not just give her palliative care--such as medication to control her pain? Or so the reasoning--make that, the rationalization--is likely to go.)
Well, tens of millions of uninsured with a study that established 45,000 people dying because of it and STILL NO PLAN by Republicans to stop it.... technically we can't say Republicans support people dying to save a few bucks. We can't dispute the fact that raising the benefit ages for Social Security isn't about having people die to save a few bucks though. That is supported by some Democrats and all Republicans that I'm aware of.
The $2,500/family "savings" was always mythical because that was a savings at some day in the future based upon theoretical possible increases in the costs of health insurance to the "family" based upon government subsidies and other factors. Basically the premise for the claim was "if family health insurance costs $5,000 today and rises to $10,000 then it would have risen to $12,500 without Obamacare." It wasn't a claim that costs would go down but instead that they won't go up "as much." I knew it was BS and you probably knew it was BS to begin with.
Actually the best way to rein in costs IMO is to increase payments to primary care physicians so they will treat the patients as opposed to referring them to the specialists because the primary care physicians aren't paid enough to treat them now. It could also put some limits on things like "personal mobility scooters" that are way over-priced "Cadillacs" that people get for free where the companies are raping the federal government on pricing.
The IPAB does not have authority to intervene in the decision on whether the 88 yo can have the surgery but only if the medical procedure is authorized. For examply it can authorize or deny kidney transplants but it cannot make a decision related to a specific patient related to whether they should have a kidney transplant if kidney transplants are authorized. It addresses procedures, treatments, medications, and medical devices and not individual cases.
Certainly, the desire of many (including me) to raise the eligibility age for Social Security is to save enough money to make the program fiscally sound again; this would not result in anyone's dying sooner. President Obama promised--over and over again--that healthcare costs would decrease under his plan; not just increase more slowly. Was he being intentionally disingenuous? (Or, to put it more bluntly: Was he just lying?) What do you mean by increasing payments to primary-care physicians? My own plan (which is a managed-care plan) negotiates the Plan Allowance with all in-network providers (as all other PPOs do, as well as all HMOs). What these providers get paid for services rendered depends entirely upon those annual negotiations. It is my understanding that the IPAB might authorize or deny certain procedures based solely upon age. In other words, this 88-year-old great grandmother might not have very much time remaining, according to the actuarial tables--even if the disease itself did not take her life--so the IPAB might not authorize the same procedure for her that it might authorize for a 39-year-old man (or woman). In fact, it is my understanding that the NIH, in the UK, is currently considering a "fair-innings" approach of exactly this sort. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 10, 2014 10:24:32 GMT
Certainly, the desire of many (including me) to raise the eligibility age for Social Security is to save enough money to make the program fiscally sound again; this would not result in anyone's dying sooner. President Obama promised--over and over again--that healthcare costs would decrease under his plan; not just increase more slowly. Was he being intentionally disingenuous? (Or, to put it more bluntly: Was he just lying?) What do you mean by increasing payments to primary-care physicians? My own plan (which is a managed-care plan) negotiates the Plan Allowance with all in-network providers (as all other PPOs do, as well as all HMOs). What these providers get paid for services rendered depends entirely upon those annual negotiations. It is my understanding that the IPAB might authorize or deny certain procedures based solely upon age. In other words, this 88-year-old great grandmother might not have very much time remaining, according to the actuarial tables--even if the disease itself did not take her life--so the IPAB might not authorize the same procedure for her that it might authorize for a 39-year-old man (or woman). In fact, it is my understanding that the NIH, in the UK, is currently considering a "fair-innings" approach of exactly this sort.
Social Security is a losing proposition that can only be made financially sound by turning it into a completely worthless program. Social Security is already virtually worthless because tens of millions of people collecting Social Security also have to rely on other government welfare programs to survive. The "retirement age" for Social Securty was not based upon how old people lived but instead it was based upon how long a person could be expected to work. The age where a person can no longer be expected to work has not changed and increasing the "retirement" age cannot be rationalized.
I'm 65 and if I had worked in a hard labor job like construction I would not be able to work today in that field. I'm physically incapable of doing so anymore. It makes no sense whatsoever to expect people to continue working when they physically or mentally can't do so anymore but that is exactly what Congress is doing by raising the retirement age.
What a PPO or HMO does is not the same as Medicare. Medicare/Medicaid payment for doctor services are controlled by law and are not negotiated with medical service providers. That's why most private clinics will not accept new Medicare/Medicaid patients.
Federal law prohibits age discrimination and the IPAB cannot create age discrimintion by it's actions or policies. The IPAB does not have legislative authority to over-ride federal anti-discrimination laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 10, 2014 23:35:25 GMT
Certainly, the desire of many (including me) to raise the eligibility age for Social Security is to save enough money to make the program fiscally sound again; this would not result in anyone's dying sooner. President Obama promised--over and over again--that healthcare costs would decrease under his plan; not just increase more slowly. Was he being intentionally disingenuous? (Or, to put it more bluntly: Was he just lying?) What do you mean by increasing payments to primary-care physicians? My own plan (which is a managed-care plan) negotiates the Plan Allowance with all in-network providers (as all other PPOs do, as well as all HMOs). What these providers get paid for services rendered depends entirely upon those annual negotiations. It is my understanding that the IPAB might authorize or deny certain procedures based solely upon age. In other words, this 88-year-old great grandmother might not have very much time remaining, according to the actuarial tables--even if the disease itself did not take her life--so the IPAB might not authorize the same procedure for her that it might authorize for a 39-year-old man (or woman). In fact, it is my understanding that the NIH, in the UK, is currently considering a "fair-innings" approach of exactly this sort.
Social Security is a losing proposition that can only be made financially sound by turning it into a completely worthless program. Social Security is already virtually worthless because tens of millions of people collecting Social Security also have to rely on other government welfare programs to survive. The "retirement age" for Social Securty was not based upon how old people lived but instead it was based upon how long a person could be expected to work. The age where a person can no longer be expected to work has not changed and increasing the "retirement" age cannot be rationalized.
I'm 65 and if I had worked in a hard labor job like construction I would not be able to work today in that field. I'm physically incapable of doing so anymore. It makes no sense whatsoever to expect people to continue working when they physically or mentally can't do so anymore but that is exactly what Congress is doing by raising the retirement age.
What a PPO or HMO does is not the same as Medicare. Medicare/Medicaid payment for doctor services are controlled by law and are not negotiated with medical service providers. That's why most private clinics will not accept new Medicare/Medicaid patients.
Federal law prohibits age discrimination and the IPAB cannot create age discrimintion by it's actions or policies. The IPAB does not have legislative authority to over-ride federal anti-discrimination laws.
Well, we are approximately the same age. (For the record, I am 66.) So I feel a bit of comradeship there. Discussing the issues with you is very different from discussing the same issues with a twentysomething or a thirtysomething. Why do you believe that Social Security can be made fiscally sound only by "turning it into a completely worthless program"? If the eligibility age were raised--by even just one year (as has already been done once before)--I believe that would help to restore its fiscal solvency. (Of course, it would also help enormously if politicians--from both major parties--would stop conflating the general fund with Social Security, and cease raiding it. This is a practice that began with LBJ, who desired both "guns and butter"; but it was not just LBJ--or just Democratic presidents--who have been guilty of this horrible misbehavior!) I do agree with you as concerning the difficulty that this would surely raise for those who have spent many years in jobs performing physical labor (as opposed to desk jobs). That is the best argument against my proposal--by far, I believe. Still, I believe that, on balance, it is probably the least undesirable way of restoring Social Security to fiscal solvency. (Cutting benefits or raising taxes strikes me as being far more onerous--although, as regarding the latter, I would not necessarily be opposed to our lengthening, or lifting altogether, the cap on income that is eligible for FICA taxation.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 11, 2014 10:40:43 GMT
Well, we are approximately the same age. (For the record, I am 66.) So I feel a bit of comradeship there. Discussing the issues with you is very different from discussing the same issues with a twentysomething or a thirtysomething. Why do you believe that Social Security can be made fiscally sound only by "turning it into a completely worthless program"? If the eligibility age were raised--by even just one year (as has already been done once before)--I believe that would help to restore its fiscal solvency. (Of course, it would also help enormously if politicians--from both major parties--would stop conflating the general fund with Social Security, and cease raiding it. This is a practice that began with LBJ, who desired both "guns and butter"; but it was not just LBJ--or just Democratic presidents--who have been guilty of this horrible misbehavior!) I do agree with you as concerning the difficulty that this would surely raise for those who have spent many years in jobs performing physical labor (as opposed to desk jobs). That is the best argument against my proposal--by far, I believe. Still, I believe that, on balance, it is probably the least undesirable way of restoring Social Security to fiscal solvency. (Cutting benefits or raising taxes strikes me as being far more onerous--although, as regarding the latter, I would not necessarily be opposed to our lengthening, or lifting altogether, the cap on income that is eligible for FICA taxation.)
My point would be that, inspite of "liberal" arguments, Social Security is fundamentally worthless to begin with. "Liberals" argue that it keeps millions out of poverty at retirement but I say that's hogwash. It keeps them above the "official poverty level" but with average benefits only being $15,000/yr virtually all of the households below $15,000 collecting other welfare benefits. It's a welfare program that depends upon other welfare programs and that makes no sense.
For a lifetime low income worker, the person that needs "Social Security" the most, their benefits will be below $10,000/yr. Basically the proposition is "live in poverty your entire working career and then live in worse poverty when you're too old to work." They would go from trying to live on $15,080/yr to trying to live on perhaps 1/2 of that.
Of course all of those that die before "retirement age" get screwed by Social Security. Once agian even the lowest paid worker has the taxes withheld and these individuals are the most likely to die before the "official retirement age" and we're screwing them. The people that needed "Social Security" the most when it was created are the once being screwed the most by it. Raising the retirement age equates to "Screw more People" because they will die without ever receiving a damn thing for all of the taxes they paid.
That's why I proposed privatization where low income workers wouldn't have any more money taken from their paychecks and where they would be vested 100% in a private investment account. Instead of receiving perhaps $8.000/yr from Social Security (plus more in welfare) they could have a $55,000/yr income based upon over $1 million in personal assets that they would leave to their heirs increasing generational wealth. If they die before "retirement" then all of their investments are passed onto their heirs also increasing generational wealth. An "average income" household would retire with about $150.000/yr income under my proposal. No one under my proposal would receive less than $30,000/yr because that's where I placed the "safety net" at age 70 assuming they can work that long.
The difference between my proposal and our current Social Security system is that I address the problem. The problem was a failure of about 1/2 of all people to invest throughout their working career so that their assets would provide income when they became too old to work. I use the person's labor to fund investment accounts so that they "pay" for their own retirement through their own private investments. Social Security provided income but that was just a symptom of the problem and it was based upon someone else, generally poor people, providing income to those too old to work.
I really have to ask what kind of idiot came up with a plan to take money from working poor people as tax to provide poverty level income to those that are too old to work? That had to be the stupidest proposal I've ever heard of.
Ignoring the fact that the "assets" left to heirs if premature death occurs just compare these numbers.
My proposal Minimum wage working lifetime = approx. $55,000/yr in retirement income. (plus over $1 million left for heirs)
Social Security Minimum wage working lifetime = maybe $8,000/yr in retirement income. (nothing left for heirs)
My proposal Average retirement income @ age 65 = about $150,000/yr (plus several million left for heirs)
Social Security Maximum retirement income @ age 66 = about $29,000/yr (nothing left for heirs)
My proposal is based upon the labor of the person providing the benefits and I use that same foundation in addressing the health care needs of working Americans. When it came to old age income we accept that the employer is responsible because the employer has to pay the worker wages that the FICA taxes are withheld from plus an matching contribution from the employer with the Payroll tax. My proposal is based upon the same thing when it comes to health insurance. The employer provides the "group insurance" and the employee contributes to the cost of the premium.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 11, 2014 15:49:44 GMT
Well, we are approximately the same age. (For the record, I am 66.) So I feel a bit of comradeship there. Discussing the issues with you is very different from discussing the same issues with a twentysomething or a thirtysomething. Why do you believe that Social Security can be made fiscally sound only by "turning it into a completely worthless program"? If the eligibility age were raised--by even just one year (as has already been done once before)--I believe that would help to restore its fiscal solvency. (Of course, it would also help enormously if politicians--from both major parties--would stop conflating the general fund with Social Security, and cease raiding it. This is a practice that began with LBJ, who desired both "guns and butter"; but it was not just LBJ--or just Democratic presidents--who have been guilty of this horrible misbehavior!) I do agree with you as concerning the difficulty that this would surely raise for those who have spent many years in jobs performing physical labor (as opposed to desk jobs). That is the best argument against my proposal--by far, I believe. Still, I believe that, on balance, it is probably the least undesirable way of restoring Social Security to fiscal solvency. (Cutting benefits or raising taxes strikes me as being far more onerous--although, as regarding the latter, I would not necessarily be opposed to our lengthening, or lifting altogether, the cap on income that is eligible for FICA taxation.)
My point would be that, inspite of "liberal" arguments, Social Security is fundamentally worthless to begin with. "Liberals" argue that it keeps millions out of poverty at retirement but I say that's hogwash. It keeps them above the "official poverty level" but with average benefits only being $15,000/yr virtually all of the households below $15,000 collecting other welfare benefits. It's a welfare program that depends upon other welfare programs and that makes no sense.
For a lifetime low income worker, the person that needs "Social Security" the most, their benefits will be below $10,000/yr. Basically the proposition is "live in poverty your entire working career and then live in worse poverty when you're too old to work." They would go from trying to live on $15,080/yr to trying to live on perhaps 1/2 of that.
Of course all of those that die before "retirement age" get screwed by Social Security. Once agian even the lowest paid worker has the taxes withheld and these individuals are the most likely to die before the "official retirement age" and we're screwing them. The people that needed "Social Security" the most when it was created are the once being screwed the most by it. Raising the retirement age equates to "Screw more People" because they will die without ever receiving a damn thing for all of the taxes they paid.
That's why I proposed privatization where low income workers wouldn't have any more money taken from their paychecks and where they would be vested 100% in a private investment account. Instead of receiving perhaps $8.000/yr from Social Security (plus more in welfare) they could have a $55,000/yr income based upon over $1 million in personal assets that they would leave to their heirs increasing generational wealth. If they die before "retirement" then all of their investments are passed onto their heirs also increasing generational wealth. An "average income" household would retire with about $150.000/yr income under my proposal. No one under my proposal would receive less than $30,000/yr because that's where I placed the "safety net" at age 70 assuming they can work that long.
The difference between my proposal and our current Social Security system is that I address the problem. The problem was a failure of about 1/2 of all people to invest throughout their working career so that their assets would provide income when they became too old to work. I use the person's labor to fund investment accounts so that they "pay" for their own retirement through their own private investments. Social Security provided income but that was just a symptom of the problem and it was based upon someone else, generally poor people, providing income to those too old to work.
I really have to ask what kind of idiot came up with a plan to take money from working poor people as tax to provide poverty level income to those that are too old to work? That had to be the stupidest proposal I've ever heard of.
Ignoring the fact that the "assets" left to heirs if premature death occurs just compare these numbers.
My proposal Minimum wage working lifetime = approx. $55,000/yr in retirement income. (plus over $1 million left for heirs)
Social Security Minimum wage working lifetime = maybe $8,000/yr in retirement income. (nothing left for heirs)
My proposal Average retirement income @ age 65 = about $150,000/yr (plus several million left for heirs)
Social Security Maximum retirement income @ age 66 = about $29,000/yr (nothing left for heirs)
My proposal is based upon the labor of the person providing the benefits and I use that same foundation in addressing the health care needs of working Americans. When it came to old age income we accept that the employer is responsible because the employer has to pay the worker wages that the FICA taxes are withheld from plus an matching contribution from the employer with the Payroll tax. My proposal is based upon the same thing when it comes to health insurance. The employer provides the "group insurance" and the employee contributes to the cost of the premium.
As I have indicated previously, your proposal for retirement income makes pretty good sense to me; however, it is unlikely ever to be enacted. Democrats would surely demagogue it--as they did with George W. Bush's proposal to partially privatize Social Security, voluntarily--and, in the meantime, the perfect should not be made the enemy of the good, as the old saying goes. As for your observation that "virtually all of the households below $15,000" per year in Social Security are "collecting other welfare benefits"--leaving aside, for the moment, your (most inaccurate) description of Social Security as mere "welfare"--the fact is that I collect only $12,252 per year in Social Security benefits. (That comes to $1,021 per month.) And I do not collect food stamps (now known, euphemistically, as the SNAP program), WIC benefits, SSI, or anything else that might be generally regarded as welfare assistance. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 12, 2014 17:13:05 GMT
As I have indicated previously, your proposal for retirement income makes pretty good sense to me; however, it is unlikely ever to be enacted. Democrats would surely demagogue it--as they did with George W. Bush's proposal to partially privatize Social Security, voluntarily--and, in the meantime, the perfect should not be made the enemy of the good, as the old saying goes. As for your observation that "virtually all of the households below $15,000" per year in Social Security are "collecting other welfare benefits"--leaving aside, for the moment, your (most inaccurate) description of Social Security as mere "welfare"--the fact is that I collect only $12,252 per year in Social Security benefits. (That comes to $1,021 per month.) And I do not collect food stamps (now known, euphemistically, as the SNAP program), WIC benefits, SSI, or anything else that might be generally regarded as welfare assistance.
Democrats condemned former President Bush's proposal because it sucked because of several factors.
When taxes are collected from one person and given to another person to mitigate poverty by the government it's "Welfare" no matter what anyone chooses to call it.
If you have no other source of income then you qualify for welfare benefits even though you may choose not to collect them. Most households with less than $15,000 in Social Security income have no personal assets and they do collect welfare benefits in addition to Social Security. In fact the majority of households have virtually no personal assets at retirement at all. Remember that the "average" in personal assets at age 65 is only $100,000 for all Americans and the single largest source of personal assets is the family home and not investments that provide a return (income).
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 12, 2014 18:51:58 GMT
As I have indicated previously, your proposal for retirement income makes pretty good sense to me; however, it is unlikely ever to be enacted. Democrats would surely demagogue it--as they did with George W. Bush's proposal to partially privatize Social Security, voluntarily--and, in the meantime, the perfect should not be made the enemy of the good, as the old saying goes. As for your observation that "virtually all of the households below $15,000" per year in Social Security are "collecting other welfare benefits"--leaving aside, for the moment, your (most inaccurate) description of Social Security as mere "welfare"--the fact is that I collect only $12,252 per year in Social Security benefits. (That comes to $1,021 per month.) And I do not collect food stamps (now known, euphemistically, as the SNAP program), WIC benefits, SSI, or anything else that might be generally regarded as welfare assistance.
Democrats condemned former President Bush's proposal because it sucked because of several factors.
When taxes are collected from one person and given to another person to mitigate poverty by the government it's "Welfare" no matter what anyone chooses to call it.
If you have no other source of income then you qualify for welfare benefits even though you may choose not to collect them. Most households with less than $15,000 in Social Security income have no personal assets and they do collect welfare benefits in addition to Social Security. In fact the majority of households have virtually no personal assets at retirement at all. Remember that the "average" in personal assets at age 65 is only $100,000 for all Americans and the single largest source of personal assets is the family home and not investments that provide a return (income).
And how is it, exactly, that then-President George W. Bush's proposal for the (voluntary) partial privatization of Social Security "sucked"? The idea behind Social Security--beginning, of course, with FDR--was for current workers to support current retirees; and, when those current workers became retirees themselves, for the next generation to support them. And so forth, ad infinitum. Whether that is a fiscally sustainable model makes for an interesting point of discussion, cosidering that (1) not every generation is exactly the same size as the previous generation; and (2) average longevity is not a static number. But that still does not make Social Security a "welfare" program; it is merely a program that is in need of some reform, in my opinion. I do not know what your source is, as regarding the $100,000 "average" in "personal assets" at age 65 (including even one's home--far less than that without this inclusion, presumably). But let us assume, for sake of discussion, that it is pretty accurate. That simply argues for the necessity of saving for retirement during one's working lifetime; which is precisely in keeping with what I have been suggesting all along. (No, one does not need to be wealthy--or even upper-middle class--in order to do this. I never in my life earned more than $12 an hour--which is not exactly an impressive wage--and most months, I worked much more undertime than overtime. Yet I made it a prioity to save aggressively.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 13, 2014 11:54:34 GMT
Democrats condemned former President Bush's proposal because it sucked because of several factors.
When taxes are collected from one person and given to another person to mitigate poverty by the government it's "Welfare" no matter what anyone chooses to call it.
If you have no other source of income then you qualify for welfare benefits even though you may choose not to collect them. Most households with less than $15,000 in Social Security income have no personal assets and they do collect welfare benefits in addition to Social Security. In fact the majority of households have virtually no personal assets at retirement at all. Remember that the "average" in personal assets at age 65 is only $100,000 for all Americans and the single largest source of personal assets is the family home and not investments that provide a return (income).
And how is it, exactly, that then-President George W. Bush's proposal for the (voluntary) partial privatization of Social Security "sucked"? The idea behind Social Security--beginning, of course, with FDR--was for current workers to support current retirees; and, when those current workers became retirees themselves, for the next generation to support them. And so forth, ad infinitum. Whether that is a fiscally sustainable model makes for an interesting point of discussion, cosidering that (1) not every generation is exactly the same size as the previous generation; and (2) average longevity is not a static number. But that still does not make Social Security a "welfare" program; it is merely a program that is in need of some reform, in my opinion. I do not know what your source is, as regarding the $100,000 "average" in "personal assets" at age 65 (including even one's home--far less than that without this inclusion, presumably). But let us assume, for sake of discussion, that it is pretty accurate. That simply argues for the necessity of saving for retirement during one's working lifetime; which is precisely in keeping with what I have been suggesting all along. (No, one does not need to be wealthy--or even upper-middle class--in order to do this. I never in my life earned more than $12 an hour--which is not exactly an impressive wage--and most months, I worked much more undertime than overtime. Yet I made it a prioity to save aggressively.)
Former President Bush's proposal, and other "conservative" proposals, for privatization of Social Security are only viable for high income workers that don't actually need Social Security at all because they have adequate income to privately invest already. It stripped out revenue necessary for the vast majority that have to include Social Security as a part of or all of their retirement income. It did not "improve" Social Security and actually made it worse by depending upon reductions in future benefits to compensate for the lost revenue. Privatization must address everyone and not just upper income households. It should also improve the program as opposed to making it worse.
"The idea behind Social Security--beginning, of course, with FDR--was for current workers to support current retirees" and that was the problem with it. It depended upon taxing some people to provide income to others and that is WELFARE. Instead of using the person's labor during their working lifetime to provide build assets that provide income during retirement (i.e. the problem identified) it provided welfare income to them based upon taxing other people.
When the problem was identified by Congress in the 1930's it found that about 1/2 of the people did exactly what you did but the other 1/2 did not and that created a financial burdern on society that private charities simply could not meet. Yes, that reflects personal irressponsibility but by the time someone is too old to work it doesn't make a difference because we can let them starve, be thrown out into the streets, or die because they can't afford to see a doctor. There were two possible solutions. One was for goverment welfare programs that mitigated the fact that 1/2 the people are irresponsible and that's what Congress decided to do. While it bothers me as a libertatian I addressed the irreseponsibilty by government forcing the person to be "responsible" and invest. The only thing that makes this acceptable to me is that the "money" still belongs to the person and is not being confiscated as taxation from them. That is the basis for my privatization plan for Social Security. It is based 100% on the labor of the person and the "money" is "their money" because they're 100% vested in their investment portfolio from the first dollar.
As much as I oppose government force the problem existed where personal irresponsibility created a financial burden on a moral and compassionate society so I sought a pragmatic solution where the least amount of government force was used to resolve the problem.
Today we have a similar problem. I all employers provided adequate minimum compensation in wages and benefits we would not require government welfare assistance for working Americans. The employers are depending upon the government to provide welfare assistance for their workers basic needs and that is irresponsible.
That irresponsibility by employers must be addressed just like the irresponsibility of the individuals that failed to provide for their retirement. There is no fundamental difference between the two. The worker is irresponsible because they don't voluntarily invest and the employer is irresponsible with they don't voluntarily provide adequate compensation because both impose a financial obligation upon a moral and compassionate society.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 13, 2014 18:18:30 GMT
Well, we are approximately the same age. (For the record, I am 66.) So I feel a bit of comradeship there. Discussing the issues with you is very different from discussing the same issues with a twentysomething or a thirtysomething. Why do you believe that Social Security can be made fiscally sound only by "turning it into a completely worthless program"? If the eligibility age were raised--by even just one year (as has already been done once before)--I believe that would help to restore its fiscal solvency. (Of course, it would also help enormously if politicians--from both major parties--would stop conflating the general fund with Social Security, and cease raiding it. This is a practice that began with LBJ, who desired both "guns and butter"; but it was not just LBJ--or just Democratic presidents--who have been guilty of this horrible misbehavior!) I do agree with you as concerning the difficulty that this would surely raise for those who have spent many years in jobs performing physical labor (as opposed to desk jobs). That is the best argument against my proposal--by far, I believe. Still, I believe that, on balance, it is probably the least undesirable way of restoring Social Security to fiscal solvency. (Cutting benefits or raising taxes strikes me as being far more onerous--although, as regarding the latter, I would not necessarily be opposed to our lengthening, or lifting altogether, the cap on income that is eligible for FICA taxation.)
My point would be that, inspite of "liberal" arguments, Social Security is fundamentally worthless to begin with. "Liberals" argue that it keeps millions out of poverty at retirement but I say that's hogwash. It keeps them above the "official poverty level" but with average benefits only being $15,000/yr virtually all of the households below $15,000 collecting other welfare benefits. It's a welfare program that depends upon other welfare programs and that makes no sense.
For a lifetime low income worker, the person that needs "Social Security" the most, their benefits will be below $10,000/yr. Basically the proposition is "live in poverty your entire working career and then live in worse poverty when you're too old to work." They would go from trying to live on $15,080/yr to trying to live on perhaps 1/2 of that.
Of course all of those that die before "retirement age" get screwed by Social Security. Once agian even the lowest paid worker has the taxes withheld and these individuals are the most likely to die before the "official retirement age" and we're screwing them. The people that needed "Social Security" the most when it was created are the once being screwed the most by it. Raising the retirement age equates to "Screw more People" because they will die without ever receiving a damn thing for all of the taxes they paid.
That's why I proposed privatization where low income workers wouldn't have any more money taken from their paychecks and where they would be vested 100% in a private investment account. Instead of receiving perhaps $8.000/yr from Social Security (plus more in welfare) they could have a $55,000/yr income based upon over $1 million in personal assets that they would leave to their heirs increasing generational wealth. If they die before "retirement" then all of their investments are passed onto their heirs also increasing generational wealth. An "average income" household would retire with about $150.000/yr income under my proposal. No one under my proposal would receive less than $30,000/yr because that's where I placed the "safety net" at age 70 assuming they can work that long.
The difference between my proposal and our current Social Security system is that I address the problem. The problem was a failure of about 1/2 of all people to invest throughout their working career so that their assets would provide income when they became too old to work. I use the person's labor to fund investment accounts so that they "pay" for their own retirement through their own private investments. Social Security provided income but that was just a symptom of the problem and it was based upon someone else, generally poor people, providing income to those too old to work.
I really have to ask what kind of idiot came up with a plan to take money from working poor people as tax to provide poverty level income to those that are too old to work? That had to be the stupidest proposal I've ever heard of.
Ignoring the fact that the "assets" left to heirs if premature death occurs just compare these numbers.
My proposal Minimum wage working lifetime = approx. $55,000/yr in retirement income. (plus over $1 million left for heirs)
Social Security Minimum wage working lifetime = maybe $8,000/yr in retirement income. (nothing left for heirs)
My proposal Average retirement income @ age 65 = about $150,000/yr (plus several million left for heirs)
Social Security Maximum retirement income @ age 66 = about $29,000/yr (nothing left for heirs)
My proposal is based upon the labor of the person providing the benefits and I use that same foundation in addressing the health care needs of working Americans. When it came to old age income we accept that the employer is responsible because the employer has to pay the worker wages that the FICA taxes are withheld from plus an matching contribution from the employer with the Payroll tax. My proposal is based upon the same thing when it comes to health insurance. The employer provides the "group insurance" and the employee contributes to the cost of the premium.
On the matter of the privatization of Social Security--or, at least, its partial privatization--I largely agree with you. Whereas there are both "pools" of money and "streams" of money in retirement (each with its advantages and disadvantages), one could take the resulting pool of money, from your proposal, and invest it in a lifetime annuity (sometimes known as a SPIA) with one or more beneficiaries, upon retirement. (The beneficiaries would attenuate the monthly income a bit; but if one has a spouse or children, this could certainly be a reasonable choice.) I do believe it would be best, however, to offer each individual a choice: Either stick with the current Social Security system (which could even go belly up within a fairly short period of time) or transfer to this other system. (This is not altogether different from the choice that was offered to my late wife, in the early 1990s, when the VA--then her employer--offered her the choice of staying with the Civil Service system or changing to the newer FERS system. She chose the former.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 14, 2014 10:22:17 GMT
On the matter of the privatization of Social Security--or, at least, its partial privatization--I largely agree with you. Whereas there are both "pools" of money and "streams" of money in retirement (each with its advantages and disadvantages), one could take the resulting pool of money, from your proposal, and invest it in a lifetime annuity (sometimes known as a SPIA) with one or more beneficiaries, upon retirement. (The beneficiaries would attenuate the monthly income a bit; but if one has a spouse or children, this could certainly be a reasonable choice.) I do believe it would be best, however, to offer each individual a choice: Either stick with the current Social Security system (which could even go belly up within a fairly short period of time) or transfer to this other system. (This is not altogether different from the choice that was offered to my late wife, in the early 1990s, when the VA--then her employer--offered her the choice of staying with the Civil Service system or changing to the newer FERS system. She chose the former.)
My plan probably wouldn't work if people were given a choice because it's based upon a 45 year age-adjusted diversified investment portfolio for the lowest income groups unlike Republican proposals that are only for high income groups. "Age-adjusted" investments require the high ROI (return on investment) investments when a person is young to build initial assets because of the much lower ROI investments when a person reaches about 55 to average the 8% or greater lifetime ROI.
We really shouldn't offer a person "welfare" as a "retirement" option when they're 20 years old. The "safety net" I provide will cover the few that might not have enough income from private investments but even when I ran the numbers for someone only working 16 hrs/wk @ $10/hr for their entire life they didn't require the safety net for retirement income but did require the safety net for health insurance.
My proposal doesn't have a funding problem for the transitional period of 45 years because I expand the taxation to all incomes. By the end of the transition this taxation all but disappears but currently the financial pit we've dug with Social Security/Medicare is so huge that the taxation is required. We must pay off current financial obligations until the transition is complete but once they're gone, they're gone, and the taxation is virtually eliminated.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 15, 2014 0:51:07 GMT
On the matter of the privatization of Social Security--or, at least, its partial privatization--I largely agree with you. Whereas there are both "pools" of money and "streams" of money in retirement (each with its advantages and disadvantages), one could take the resulting pool of money, from your proposal, and invest it in a lifetime annuity (sometimes known as a SPIA) with one or more beneficiaries, upon retirement. (The beneficiaries would attenuate the monthly income a bit; but if one has a spouse or children, this could certainly be a reasonable choice.) I do believe it would be best, however, to offer each individual a choice: Either stick with the current Social Security system (which could even go belly up within a fairly short period of time) or transfer to this other system. (This is not altogether different from the choice that was offered to my late wife, in the early 1990s, when the VA--then her employer--offered her the choice of staying with the Civil Service system or changing to the newer FERS system. She chose the former.)
My plan probably wouldn't work if people were given a choice because it's based upon a 45 year age-adjusted diversified investment portfolio for the lowest income groups unlike Republican proposals that are only for high income groups. "Age-adjusted" investments require the high ROI (return on investment) investments when a person is young to build initial assets because of the much lower ROI investments when a person reaches about 55 to average the 8% or greater lifetime ROI.
We really shouldn't offer a person "welfare" as a "retirement" option when they're 20 years old. The "safety net" I provide will cover the few that might not have enough income from private investments but even when I ran the numbers for someone only working 16 hrs/wk @ $10/hr for their entire life they didn't require the safety net for retirement income but did require the safety net for health insurance.
My proposal doesn't have a funding problem for the transitional period of 45 years because I expand the taxation to all incomes. By the end of the transition this taxation all but disappears but currently the financial pit we've dug with Social Security/Medicare is so huge that the taxation is required. We must pay off current financial obligations until the transition is complete but once they're gone, they're gone, and the taxation is virtually eliminated.
Well, I am not entirely sanguine with the mandatory aspect of your proposal; although, in all fairness, it should also be noted that Social Security is not entirely voluntary. (In fact, it is not voluntary at all.) I can understand your desire to increase taxes temporarily, in order to pay off the debt. But realistically, just how many "temporary" tax increases have been abolished, once they had achieved their stated goal? |
|
