Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Thursday, March 14, 2013 | 2:02 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
In his letter “Social Security not part of the problem,” Daniel Olivier says any talk about Social Security and Medicare being part of the debt problem is fiction dreamed up by conservative politicians and media types.
The facts are that Social Security deficits already average more than $40 billion a year; there is nothing in the Social Security trust fund but IOUs, and roughly half of Medicare expenditures are paid for with public funds. So unless these programs are fixed, they will continue to increase the debt.
It’s time for Washington to stop denying that these programs are a major part of the deficit problem. These programs must be fixed, and doing it sooner will mean less pain down the road.
Obama told Senate Democrats that both Social Security and Medicare need to be fixed.
There you have it - they are broken
----
But the Senate budget that came out yesterday does nothing
Democrats will not do anything - they do not care
The Medicare and Social Security Trustees have warned in their recent reports that both funds will be insolvent and bankrupt. Medicare in 10 years and Social Security in 20. President Obama can have a legacy of fixing both for future generations. Clock is ticking and he's burning daylight.
CarmineD
There is a reason President Obama does not want Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid reform to be his 'legacy'. It is because he knows that in order to save these programs, they must be changed in ways where future recipients will get fewer benefits than current or past beneficiaries.
Paul Ryan's premium support for Medicare would reduce benefits but he won't admit that.
Neither President Obama and the Democrats or the Republicans will tell the truth about these programs. Benefits must be reduced for future recipients, taxes must be raised and means testing must be implemented for the programs to survive.
Michael
In other words Michael, President Obama doesn't want to butt horns with his base. I agree, he's a coward. But he's so good at blaming others, he need only say that the evil Republicans made him do it. Then take the credit.
CarmineD
In the past, the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds brought in more in payroll taxes than they paid out in benefits. When this happened the Treasury issued notes that are part of the National Debt to the Trust Funds. Treasury took in the surplus cash which reduced the budget deficit in those years by the amount of that surplus.
Now Treasury redeems the Trust Fund IOUs by issuing new debt and retiring the older debt held by the Trust Funds. The net increase in the National Debt is ZERO.
The budget deficit increases by the amount of Trust Fund debt redeemed but, as Dick Chaney once said "deficits don't matter". In this case they are at least less important because they don't change the National Debt.
People have to be reminded that Social Security has been broken a long time. It was put in that position by politicians from both parties who took out funds and used then for other programs.Politicians don't want to talk about how they put a perfectly run Social Security trust fund with a surplus of money into a nearly bankrupt situation.Instead of finding a way to fix what they nearly destroyed. We are told everything under the sun of how benifits may have to be cut,taxes will have to be raised to cover shortages,as well as raising the retirement age for future recipients. All the while never mentioning how they and they alone put Social Security where it is today.
It's true. The federal government uses SS money to buy non-marketable bonds (IOU's) and places them in a file cabinet.If this money was placed into the marketplace, like stock purchases, it could so distort that market as to make it unstable.
Most financial wizards know that the financial fix for Social Security is simple and relatively painless. The problem lies with the politics.
The fact that Americans spend $2.8 trillion dollars every year on health care isn't a Medicare problem it is a healthcare system problem. Corporations, workers and healthcare related companies have been milking this cash cow for more than 60 years now. It's time that employees and/or employers begin to pay taxes on their now "tax free" healthcare benefits. Once this is done more attention will be paid to cost.
The private healthcare industry operates in the dark and with impunity. Here is just one simple example. Call your insurance company and ask for the cost of a covered procedure like an MRI. Even be specific, if I receive this diagnostic procedure (covered by my plan) at facility "X" what will it cost? Is this the least expensive facility or are there others? If they have a "sole source" diagnostic supplier ask then why? In any event you will not receive the information you seek so you have no control over cost. That's fine except what if you have a high deductible? You pay the full freight. The diagnostic facility won't release the cost information unless your doctor has ordered the procedure in advance. Ninety-nine percent of doctors have no idea what any procedure they order costs. How many places do you think your doctor is willing to call and place the order so that you can then get a competitive rate? So in a nutshell this system's broken and today there is no way to fix it. Sad. Your paid for your insurance but you cannot find out in advance what it cost you to use it.
As an aside I noticed that the Ryan budget has a poision pill, "kill Obamacare, AKA the Affordable Health Care law" straw horse proposal. I wonder why he has never attacked the Medicare part "D" drug law which the Bush 43 and his administration push through in the 11 hour (actual a 3 AM vote)? After all, this was and still is an unfunded $350 billion dollar mandate. Strange isn't it?
As an aside I noticed that the Obama-Murray budget has a poision pill, another trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class, no spending controls - no reforms
----
The fundamental difference between the Democrat's Senate and the Republican House proposals is do we grow the federal government spending at 5% or 3.4% a year.
Democrats call the Republican budget increase of 3.4% per year unconscionable cruel austerity which would drive the economy into another recession and ruin.
- the Obama-Patty Murray Senate budget increases spending at more then 5.0% annually, Democrats want to spend $46 trillion over the next 10 years. Murray increases National Debt by $5 trillion.
The Murray Senate budget reverses $1.2 trillion in budget controls put in place by the Obama 2011 Budget Control Act, it make vague promises of savings due to price controls, increases Dependency benefits, eliminates $1 trillion in middle class tax deductions like charities and home interest, it does not reform taxes, it does not reform entitlements, it does not reform work- to-welfare, and never - ever balances the budget. Murray laughingly said "there are no sacred cows. We put everything we [Democrats] can put on the table." REALLY!
http://www.ifhp.com/documents/2011iFHPPr...
All you have to do is a comparative cost analysis and look at what Americans pay for basic medical procedures and what those same procedures cost in the rest of the world. You'll see why Medicare is bleeding money. The entire system is preposterous. We have $150 trillion worth of medical bills coming due in the next 30 years and Medicare and Medicaid are going to get stuck with the lions share of the cost.
Medical costs are the drivers of our deficit, bankruptcies, reduced business margins and practically everything else that ails the country fiscally.
Ryan is not attacking Medicare part D because millions of seniors get their drugs paid for by that program and those folks vote.
Richard says that doctors don't know what medical procedures cost. They may not tell you but they know exactly what procedures cost. They get sick just like the rest of us. The reality is they could care less because they're part of a totally corrupt multitrillion dollar system.
Ryan is a moron for continuing to try to defeat Obamacare. The American people provided their overwhelming support of the President and his policies in November, but idiots like Ryan still won't let it go.
As far as social security is concerned, small tweeks, like increasing the amount of income that social security is taxed on from it's present approximately $110 K to say $140 K will solve this problem, or increasing retirement age by a half year or so. There is no need to dismantle the system.
For Medicare, simply allowing people youger than 65 to buy in to this most cost effective health care program (according to Time Magazine), will go a long way towards providing inexpensive health care insurance, and ensuring its solvency for the future.
NOT says "The American people provided their overwhelming support of the President and his policies in November, but idiots like Ryan still won't let it go."
--
You are kidding right - Obama for one did not run on his policies - he ran away from his failure.
Republicans won the Senior vote where the Medicare policies played out
And Obama won a slim margin due to his war on woman, free abortions, state sponsored dependency, racial warmongering and personal attacks on his opponent. Republican won the House.
Obama obviously ran on his policies, and took ownership of them, even saying that he liked the term "Obamacare".
Talk to seniors and 99% will tell you that they like their Medicare and don't want it changed.
The "war on women" was from the Republican side, who believe in "legitimate rape".
Republicans won the house because of gerrymandering, Democratic representatives actually got more votes than Republicans did!
I know all of this sounds untrue to the right wingers because of Teabaggeritis, a terrible affliction that doesn't allow facts to enter thought processes of those with the disease. However, the facts speak for themselves.
Not now says "the Republican side...believe in "legitimate rape"."
This is how Democrats won by lying
Not on any policy win
Retired people voted for the Republican Medicare reform
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Its beyond funny! I'm talking about the statements made by FUTURE on why Obama won this last election...
Ha! Ha! Ha! Not sure where people like Future get their strange ideas from?
Rush Limbaugh???? FIXED NEWS?????
notacon hit the nail on the head when he said:
"Obama obviously ran on his policies, and took ownership of them, even saying that he liked the term "Obamacare".
Talk to seniors and 99% will tell you that they like their Medicare and don't want it changed.
The "war on women" was from the Republican side, who believe in "legitimate rape".
Republicans won the house because of gerrymandering, Democratic representatives actually got more votes than Republicans did!"
All this time I thought it was only Carmine who lived in a giant bubble....little did I realize that FUTURE also has his own bubble....
Comment removed by moderator. Off Topic
One problem with Social Security is that the recipients don't pay income tax. Set a figure that they can live with. Even five percent would be okay.
A recent proposal with some logic: change Medicaid to block grants to the States. Allow the states to manage the money and root out abuse. We HAVE TO limit Medicaid to 2/5 years, like TANF limits, rather than 24/7 constant care for the same people who refuse to work and find dependent children to maintain coverage (to maintain Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8 housing, LIHEA utility grants, child care....) These same people wind up as "low income" indigents on Medicaid funded assisted living and nursing homes--on our dimes. The feds cannot police it and don't even look at beneficiary fraud and abuse. They do a modest look at PROVIDER abuse. States and large cities could do much better with less funding. There is NO OBLIGATION for the federal government to fund any form of welfare. We would save megabucks, perhaps 50%, by reducing federal taxes and letting local government deal with NEEDED emergency care.
Social Security is not "broken." The consensus is that it needs tweaks now to head off a possible break in the future.
Medicare is not broken. The entire U.S. Health Care system, however, is very definitely broken. Why do we pay considerably more for our total health care bill than most other developed countries? And why, for all that money, do we receive overall worse outcomes than do residents of most other developed countries??
Social Security is not "broken." The consensus is that it needs tweaks now to head off a possible break in the future.
Medicare is not broken. The entire U.S. Health Care system, however, is very definitely broken. Why do we pay considerably more for our total health care bill than most other developed countries? And why, for all that money, do we receive overall worse outcomes than do residents of most other developed countries?
Apologies to all for messing up and double posting!
Ms. Anderson... The vast majority of Medicaid recipients are the working poor. Not people who refuse to work. Walmart has several hundred thousand employees on Medicaid. Medical costs will soon exceed $20,000 per family. Far more than the vast majority of the people in this country can come close to paying. A substantial number of all of the major medical procedures are being paid for by either Medicaid or Medicare. Without these two insurance programs the US healthcare system would be bust by happy hour. Every major hospital in the country would go under.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/29/pf/healt...
Carmine said:
"In other words Michael, President Obama doesn't want to butt horns with his base. I agree, he's a coward. But he's so good at blaming others, he need only say that the evil Republicans made him do it. Then take the credit."
Hmmmmmm....it's very evident! Carmine is still very, very bitter over last November's election...
He NEVER misses an opportunity to throw a rock or two...
Robert Leavitt said it just the way it is....
Thank you Robert!
He said:
"Social Security is not "broken." The consensus is that it needs tweaks now to head off a possible break in the future.
Medicare is not broken. The entire U.S. Health Care system, however, is very definitely broken. Why do we pay considerably more for our total health care bill than most other developed countries? And why, for all that money, do we receive overall worse outcomes than do residents of most other developed countries??"
The answer to Robert Leavitt's question "And why, for all that money, do we receive overall worse outcomes than do residents of most other developed countries?" is politics, lawyers, greed and politics.
Tom......
AGAIN, you republicans are 100% wrong.
And we DEMOCRATS will not allow republican thieves
to steal our Social Security and Medicare.
NEVER!
We DEMOCRATS created Social Security.
We DEMOCRATS created Medicare.
We DEMOCRATS created Medicade.
AND we DEMOCRATS now run this country, voted in
by the majority of Americans.
WE REJECTED REPUBLICAN STUPIDITY!
Social Security and Medicare will be here as long
as our country is here.
We DEMOCRATS will make sure of that.
republicans need to keep their greedy, thieving
hands OFF of our Social Security!
DEMOCRATS FOREVER!
Carmine,
President Obama deserves blame for avoiding this issue but Paul Ryan and the Republicans are little better. Here is the truth that nobody says and nobody wants to hear:
These programs will need to be changed in ways that result in fewer benefits for future recipients and even with that change, higher taxes and means testing will also be required.
You tell me if ANYONE in government has said the above in those simple but unpopular terms.
Michael
Michael:
If you are correct that no one in government has said these things, and you're not, THEN the President, as the leader, should and act on it. Like I said, Clinton tried. Bush tried. Obama is AWOL.
CarmineD
Obama's only successful jobs program has been SSDI.
SS and Medicare will survive. Politicians lack the commitment to steward our economic interests. Surprised? Our longevity is declining, again, so SS might not need too much tweaking. Seems women under age 50 are passing due to chronic conditions. So many more will never collect SS. As for Medicare, it just is NOT that we are getting good or even moderate health care. We get whatever care is most expensive. The insurance companies do all they can to deny coverage, deny payment, and spend more on administrative costs, salary and bonuses to executives. Unless something changes in HEALTH CARE (not within Medicare alone), Medicare will HAVE TO BE changed to a stipend for recipients and/or stipend towards a premium. Only then, when CONSUMERS have decision-making authority will heath care costs stop skyrocketing. In the mean time, we'll hear all sorts of hype and arguments. Sure we can do some things to help or delay real solutions: We can moderate the end-of-life care that is 25% of Medicare costs--"care" that does NOT ENHANCE quality or length of life--excluding of course that being a comatose vegetable doesn't qualify as life. And sure, we could refuse to carry indigents endlessly on MEDICAID--we could stop paying for their nursing homes and assisted living--which career indigents get long before they need health-care assistance but timed right after they run out of young children, foster kids and grandchildren in their custody that award them welfare benefits. THIS is why SS and Medicare are the low-hanging fruit of SPENDING REFORM--the real issues are in "discretionary" and "defense" spending while we ignore the illegal invasion and threats to our way of life, threats to our nation.
Medicare would be fixed if younger people (less than 65) could buy in to the program as their health insurance. As the recent Time article shows, Medicare if the most cost effective heathcare insurance in the US since it basically doesn't put up with the BS pricing by hospitals. Now, if we allow medicare to negotiate pharma costs on top of this, Medicare would be solvent, and people would be getting quality, inexpensive health care. Any politician against this concept is either in the pockets of the big hosptial companies or big pharma. Of course, since these two spend much more than defense and oil for lobbyists, its not surprising that many politicians are in their pocket!
notacon: NON-medicare patients make up the difference in health care "costs" so it just would not work for more people to buy in. Medicare does continue to pay any and every charge hospitals and doctors come up with even when the treatment is predictably BAD FOR THE PATIENT.
HOWEVER, as stated in the Time article, there are many hosptals all over the US where most of the patients are Medicare, and they turn a healthy profit! Therefore, as the article states, hospitals can do just fine with what medicare pays. Oh, and the heads of these hospitals still get multimillion dollar salaries!
@teamster:
Democrats didn't create Social Security and Medicare. They stole Carlo Ponzi's idea. Democrats just nationalized it and made it mandatory instead of voluntary.
So, I guess there is some credit due to Democrats. Even drunken sailors only spend their own money...
Good, if you feel that way than I am sure you will be a true person of conviction and won't collect your social security or medicare benefits when you come of age!
@notacon: Sure thing! Just return me the money that has been confiscated ("invested") in your Ponzi scam and I will show you my conviction! I won't even charge you interest!
You wouldn't want me to be FORCED to be a part of your swell retirement scheme, do you? Being FORCED to belong to anything is the hallmark of a scam.
Perhaps you can cash in one of those "special" IOU's that Social Security keeps in a file cabinet in Parkersburg, West Virginia. Just hand me the cash or gold bullion that I am owed, and reimburse the Social Security lockbox with another "special" IOU.
Wow! Everybody wins when you think like a Democrat!
Zippert 3:53: Career indigents are among the working poor--since SOME government programs require that they work or pretend to be employed to keep collecting. So we spend more on the benefits than what they make. Career-indigents are those who never take responsibility for themselves--never decide to figure out how to. We have NO OBLIGATION to support them from cradle to grave. If they had to, some would find real work and/or manage their income and prospects. Thus, there is NO NEED for MEDICAID. We can TRANSITION OUT OF MEDICAID by limiting it to 2 years consecutive and 5 years lifetime. All programs need these limits. Sure, a body can have a bad spell but when it exceeds 5 years, it's up to you to deal with it. If you don't qualify for disability, maybe your issues are NOT legitimate restrictions hindering you from being self supporting. There is no way that "WE" can administrate whether or not an individual is "trying" or not. So, we need administrative limits on how much you can live off the "land", off taxpayers. Face it, some people will subsist on others whether those others be relatives, women, government, taxpayers, employers/programs.