Social security and medicare

**PRICEPLUS** · 12-08-2005, 02:17 PM

Re: Social security and medicare

Personally, I am operating on the premise that it will not be there for me.

**jodi** · 12-08-2005, 04:44 PM

Re: Social security and medicare

Ditto. With nearly 40 years until retirement age, I can't even imagine what will be in place by the time I am 65 (or whatever the retirement age is then!). So I am trying to save what I can starting early.

**Snoopy2645** · 12-08-2005, 06:29 PM

Re: Social security and medicare

Same here I am not counting on ssi at all I have a plan in place already in case its not thier plan is pay house off & save as much as I can & work until I fall over!!

**cercis** · 12-08-2005, 07:41 PM

Re: Social security and medicare

I only count on SS as a safety net in case DH or I should die while our kids are young. We have life insurance, but the monthly income could make the difference between poverty and a life similar to what we have now (because we neither one of us know how we'll react to the death of the other and it isn't inconceivable that we'd have to take a long term leave of absense from work).

**jmjj215** · 12-09-2005, 06:00 AM

Re: Social security and medicare

With all of those people 30-40 yrs away from retirement, I just hope they don't suck our money away to support a soon-insolvent system (how soon is the debate) - because then, with no money we won't be able to execute our SS-Free retirement plans anyway.

(I'm being somewhat sarcastic here).

**VJW** · 12-09-2005, 06:21 AM

Re: Social security and medicare

Social Security is just fine. Where’s the problem ?

Medicare is inherently fine, but the cost of medical care is rising at exorbitant rates. The new private-sector prescription drug program is a miserable disaster.

#

**sweeps** · 12-09-2005, 03:12 PM

Re: Social security and medicare

Originally posted by VJW

Social Security is just fine. Where�s the problem ?

Medicare is inherently fine, but the cost of medical care is rising at exorbitant rates. The new private-sector prescription drug program is a miserable disaster.

Hmmm... Well, how about this for starters.

The fundamentals of the financial status of Social Security and Medicare remain problematic under the intermediate economic and demographic assumptions. Social Security's current annual cash surpluses will soon begin to decline and will be followed by deficits that begin to grow rapidly toward the end of the next decade as the baby boom generation retires. The Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund that pays hospital benefits had negative cash flows in 2004 and annual cash flow deficits are expected to continue and to grow rapidly after 2010 as baby boomers begin to retire. The growing deficits in both programs will lead to exhaustion in trust fund reserves for HI in 2020 and for Social Security in 2041. In addition, the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund that pays for physician services and the new prescription drug benefit will require substantial increases over time in both general revenue financing and premium charges. As the reserves in Social Security and HI are drawn down and SMI general revenue financing requirements continue to grow, the pressure on the Federal budget will intensify. We do not believe the currently projected long run growth rates of Social Security and Medicare are sustainable under current financing arrangements.

Source: Social Security Administration

**VJW** · 12-09-2005, 09:10 PM

Re: Social security and medicare

Originally posted by Sweepsplayer

Hmmm... Well, how about this for starters.

Oh, the Social Security Trustees ?

Well, first off, back in 1992, the trustees had predicted that the Social Security Trust Fund would expire in 2039, but after the eight years of the Clinton administration, the Social Security Trust Fund was extended by FIFTEEN YEARS to 2054.

Additionally, the current administration has packed the board of trustees with people who favor scrapping Social Security and giving it to Wall Street, and scrapping Medicare and giving it to the Corporate HMOs. Needless to say, they have yet to miss a chance to misrepresent these extremely efficient programs to the American people.

For example, to arrive at the ridiculous projections the trustees have released, they assume a level of economic growth over the next 75 years that is LESS THAN HALF the rate we have seen over the past 75 years. Even the Great Depression in the 1930s showed a greater growth rate than the moribund 1.8% the RightWing actuaries plugged in to the model they utilized to arrive at their phoney numbers.

The fundamentals of the financial status of Social Security and Medicare remain problematic under the intermediate economic and demographic assumptions.

As long as the RightWing is intent on scrapping both.

Social Security's current annual cash surpluses will soon begin to decline

False.

and will be followed by deficits that begin to grow rapidly toward the end of the next decade as the baby boom generation retires.

False.

The Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund that pays hospital benefits had negative cash flows in 2004 and annual cash flow deficits are expected to continue and to grow rapidly after 2010 as baby boomers begin to retire.

After the eight years of the Clinton administration, the Medicare Trust Fund was extended by TWENTY-FOUR YEARS.

The growing deficits in both programs will lead to exhaustion in trust fund reserves for HI in 2020 and for Social Security in 2041.

False.

The assessment of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (currently under the control of the Republican Majority) is that Social Security can pay all promised benefits through the year 2054 with no changes whatsoever, then pay 81% of promised benefits until the Baby Boomers finish exiting the system (which, in inflation-adjusted dollars will be more than what today’s retirees receive), then resume 100% of promised benefits. And that’s using pessimistic assumptions.

Currently, of the U.S. government outside of Social Security, revenue covers less than 68% of total government spending. Therefore, forty-nine years from now, Social Security will be in better financial shape than the rest of the U.S. government is TODAY.

In addition, the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund that pays for physician services and the new prescription drug benefit will require substantial increases over time in both general revenue financing and premium charges.

Because the majority of the federal spending for the non-Medicare private-sector prescription drug program is for Corporate Welfare, not for prescription drugs for seniors.

We do not believe the currently projected long run growth rates of Social Security and Medicare are sustainable under current financing arrangements.

Social Security is more financially sound today than it has been throughout most of its 69-year history.

#

**jmjj215** · 12-10-2005, 06:59 AM

Re: Social security and medicare

I would much rather own my social security and have it run much like the Thrift Savings Program of public sector employees - where I could see my money growing, see its return, know that it was MINE that I could pass on to my chidren, etc.

Having it go to the govt. where both sides tell two different stories and then *hoping* there will be enough is not a position I want to be in. At the moment, I don't count on it at all.

What's the problem with having an "opt-out" approach then? Why can't we choose how we want to manage our retirement. Why does the government force us to pay 12+ percent into something that is - at best - maybe going to be there for us? I want an opt-out system, where I can choose to have a portion of my money put into a personal account.

**VJW** · 12-10-2005, 09:55 AM

Re: Social security and medicare

Originally posted by jmjj215

I would much rather own my social security and have it run much like the Thrift Savings Program of public sector employees - where I could see my money growing, see its return, know that it was MINE that I could pass on to my chidren, etc.

Those are completely different concepts, some mutually exclusive.

* The “I would much rather own my social security”, would be privatization, a concept that has proven to be a miserable failure wherever it has been tried.

* The “have it run much like the Thrift Savings Program of public sector employees”, is an apples and alligators comparison, as the TSP is on top of and in addition to Social Security, not a replacement for it. An excellent idea, and one which President Clinton proposed when he was still in office. They were called ‘USA Accounts’, but the Republican Majorities in Congress shot it down, as their intent is in scrapping Social Security, not bolstering it.

* The “know that it was MINE that I could pass on to my chi[l]dren”, is either privatization or part of an additional account, depending upon the proposal, neither of which addresses the underlying retirement account.

Having it go to the govt. where both sides tell two different stories...

Well, there are most definitely two “sides”, but that is a function of politics, as there is no actual argument going on. Only one side is relying upon “stories”. The facts are quite plain.

What's the problem with having an "opt-out" approach then?

Because you cannot partially privatize. It does not work. Not to mention that it will cost at least FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS, just over the first ten years, and nobody has delineated where the money comes from.

Then there’s the problem of people being fleeced and gouged by the private sector. Just look at what’s happening all over the country with the ridiculous private-sector prescription drug program. People are being scammed left and right.

Why can't we choose how we want to manage our retirement.

You CAN !

There are IRAs, ROTH IRAs, 401Ks, KEOGHs, and on and on...

I want an opt-out system, where I can choose to have a portion of my money put into a personal account.

Once again, you cannot partially privatize. And where do you propose we get the trillions of dollars required ?

Then there’s the matter of no private-sector investment has been able to consistently return the same as the Social Security Trust Fund, and most certainly not GUARANTEE such a return, and do so at such low overhead costs.

Where would be an advantage ?

#

**sweeps** · 12-10-2005, 12:31 PM

Re: Social security and medicare

VJW, so let me get this straight. The ruling party is out to "destroy" SS and Medicare, and even the people who are managing the programs want to "scrap" them. And yet Social Security and Medicare are "just fine". Makes sense to me.

**VJW** · 12-10-2005, 01:18 PM

Re: Social security and medicare

Makes sense to me as well.

You see, they cannot alter or eliminate either program without first passing legislation to rewrite the existing federal statutes. They don’t want to do that with both being so wildly popular and how much widespread support they have in the country. Not to mention how efficiently run both programs are compared to the private sector. But if they could convince the American people that they are failing, then why would anyone oppose ending them ? Hence the propaganda campaign.

#

**cercis** · 12-10-2005, 05:52 PM

Re: Social security and medicare

I think something that needs to be emphasized is that the overhead costs for SS are very low. If we were to privatize it, a large portion of the individual's savings would be eaten up with broker's commissions.

**sweeps** · 12-10-2005, 06:26 PM

Re: Social security and medicare

I think what Jesse may be getting at is -- regardless of how efficient Social Security may be -- there is no guarantee that you're going to get anything when it's your time to collect benefits.

Social security and medicare