4 ms·

I'll check the polls again when the economy collapses under the burden of too generous government benefits.

by ellyagg 17y ago

100k 17y ago
This is a total fallacy. Medicare costs are rising astronomically, but no more than private health insurance. It is a symptom of the broader health care problem. This needs to be fixed, along with the rest of the health care system. Social Security is only 4.4% of our GDP and is projected to go up to 6.2%. Oh noes! That is a truly minor cost. We CAN afford it.
- drawkbox 17y ago
  Healthcare is a bubble that has been created by removing the actual costs from the providers and the consumers (until you are outside it and have to pay outside insurance). When healthcare is removed from being tied to employers this market will change dramatically. Healthcare, private IRA accounts, savings etc are all needed today separated from employers as people rapidly change jobs. Social Security isn't actually much of a problem (in fact the gov't uses it for funds all the time) it is Medicare and Medicaid.
  - Retric 17y ago
    US healthcare cost is actually dominated by overhead. Add up malpractice insurance, medical billing, drug advertizing, insurance companies (more advertizing, administration, reviewing claims etc.), hospital overhead, and proft every step of the way. Overhead just dominates heal care spending which is why Canida has universal heathcare while spending less government money per person than the US.
    - 0x44 17y ago
      Canada has also one-tenth the population of the United States. Which is confined mostly to a 150km corridor on the United States border.
      - Retric 17y ago
        I can't help but wonder what inpact you think that would have on heathcare spending per person. PS: Most americans live within 150 miles of the ocean.
        0x44 17y ago
        A lower population means less need be spent to provide health-care services per individual. That three-quarters of the Canadian population living within 150 kilometers (which is approximately 62% the distance of 150 miles) means that fewer resources need be expended to provide that level of service due to population density. If we assume that an identical proportion of the United States population lives within 150 miles of an ocean, that still leaves a population that is more than twice the total population of Canada in the interior. Reaching those people with the same standard of service will not cost as little as the Canadian system.
        Retric 17y ago
        A lower population means less need be spent to provide health-care services per individual. Why? If the average cost of 300 million people was say 5k/year why would the average decrease when only caring for 30 million people? The US has ~10x the population density of Canada. United States — Population - Density: 31/km2 Canada — Population - Density: 3.2/km2 And the population density of a state does not really correlate with its healthcare costs so I think it's a pointless comparison. PS: You seem to be confusing total cost with average costs.
- 3pt14159 17y ago
  Social Security is a very, very small part of it. The largest part is medical care. Here is a bite sized 30 min version of a movie called IOUSA that outlines the major problems that are ahead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo There will not be enough money. Period. The US cannot unlimitedly tax young workers for the rich. They cannot go into unlimited debt. They cannot inflate the currency without major negative repercussions on their currency. Actuarially speaking, the US cannot afford to pay for 25 to 30 years of both retirement income and medical costs. There is a saying in Canada that probably exists in the States: "If you get to 60, you are more likely to live to 90 than not." Those are a ton of years to pay for. Social security. Medicare. All the other "normal" portions of the US budget, like defense, intelligence, and infastructure. When you say "6.2% of our GDP" it doesn't sound like a lot, but it is. 4.06% of the current GDP of the United States is spent on their military. That is a TON of planes, missiles, and carriers that are being kept afloat right now and you want Social Security to receive 50% more than that? Also, The federal budget is not the be all and end all. State budgets, municipal budgets, family budgets all need portions of the 100% of the GDP. The United States has over consumed for far too long and major contractions will take place before normalcy will return.
alex_c 17y ago
I don't want to steer this towards a Reddit conversation, but... what percentage of government spending goes to "too generous government benefits"? http://mibi.deviantart.com/art/Death-and-Taxes-9410862 http://mibi.deviantart.com/art/Death-and-Taxes-9410862
Tangurena 17y ago
Government pensions can't be discharged in bankruptcy[1], nor can PBGC[2] take them over. Some rust belt communities are seeing 25% of tax revenues [3] going to pay retired police and school teachers even as the towns dwindle and get bulldozed like Flint, MI. Because courts routinely treat the 14th amendment, section 4, to mean that such debts cannot possibly be made to go away, then taxes will have to be raised just to pay past promises. Notes: 1 - Courts have routinely interpreted section 4 of the 14th Amendment to mean that governments cannot discharge debt in bankrupcties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni... 2 - PBCG is to pensions what FDIC is to bank accounts. Pension administrators pay an annual premium that ends up covering the pension in the event that the company goes tits up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension_Benefit_Guaranty_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension_Benefit_Guaranty_Corpor... 3 - The state of NJ is currently spending about 9% of tax revenues to retirees in the form of pensions and health care. A reasonable rule of thumb is that if a growing community is spending less than 10% of their tax revenues on pensions, then they either don't have one, or they're dangerously underfunding their current pension plan.

I'll check the polls again when the economy collapses under the burden of too generous government benefits.

by ellyagg 17y ago

I'll check the polls again when the economy collapses under the burden of too generous government benefits.

100k 17y ago

This is a total fallacy. Medicare costs are rising astronomically, but no more than private health insurance. It is a symptom of the broader health care problem. This needs to be fixed, along with the rest of the health care system. Social Security is only 4.4% of our GDP and is projected to go up to 6.2%. Oh noes! That is a truly minor cost. We CAN afford it.

drawkbox 17y ago
Healthcare is a bubble that has been created by removing the actual costs from the providers and the consumers (until you are outside it and have to pay outside insurance). When healthcare is removed from being tied to employers this market will change dramatically. Healthcare, private IRA accounts, savings etc are all needed today separated from employers as people rapidly change jobs. Social Security isn't actually much of a problem (in fact the gov't uses it for funds all the time) it is Medicare and Medicaid.
- Retric 17y ago
  US healthcare cost is actually dominated by overhead. Add up malpractice insurance, medical billing, drug advertizing, insurance companies (more advertizing, administration, reviewing claims etc.), hospital overhead, and proft every step of the way. Overhead just dominates heal care spending which is why Canida has universal heathcare while spending less government money per person than the US.
  - 0x44 17y ago
    Canada has also one-tenth the population of the United States. Which is confined mostly to a 150km corridor on the United States border.
    - Retric 17y ago
      I can't help but wonder what inpact you think that would have on heathcare spending per person. PS: Most americans live within 150 miles of the ocean.
      - 0x44 17y ago
        A lower population means less need be spent to provide health-care services per individual. That three-quarters of the Canadian population living within 150 kilometers (which is approximately 62% the distance of 150 miles) means that fewer resources need be expended to provide that level of service due to population density. If we assume that an identical proportion of the United States population lives within 150 miles of an ocean, that still leaves a population that is more than twice the total population of Canada in the interior. Reaching those people with the same standard of service will not cost as little as the Canadian system.
        Retric 17y ago
        A lower population means less need be spent to provide health-care services per individual. Why? If the average cost of 300 million people was say 5k/year why would the average decrease when only caring for 30 million people? The US has ~10x the population density of Canada. United States — Population - Density: 31/km2 Canada — Population - Density: 3.2/km2 And the population density of a state does not really correlate with its healthcare costs so I think it's a pointless comparison. PS: You seem to be confusing total cost with average costs.
3pt14159 17y ago
Social Security is a very, very small part of it. The largest part is medical care. Here is a bite sized 30 min version of a movie called IOUSA that outlines the major problems that are ahead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo There will not be enough money. Period. The US cannot unlimitedly tax young workers for the rich. They cannot go into unlimited debt. They cannot inflate the currency without major negative repercussions on their currency. Actuarially speaking, the US cannot afford to pay for 25 to 30 years of both retirement income and medical costs. There is a saying in Canada that probably exists in the States: "If you get to 60, you are more likely to live to 90 than not." Those are a ton of years to pay for. Social security. Medicare. All the other "normal" portions of the US budget, like defense, intelligence, and infastructure. When you say "6.2% of our GDP" it doesn't sound like a lot, but it is. 4.06% of the current GDP of the United States is spent on their military. That is a TON of planes, missiles, and carriers that are being kept afloat right now and you want Social Security to receive 50% more than that? Also, The federal budget is not the be all and end all. State budgets, municipal budgets, family budgets all need portions of the 100% of the GDP. The United States has over consumed for far too long and major contractions will take place before normalcy will return.

alex_c 17y ago

I don't want to steer this towards a Reddit conversation, but... what percentage of government spending goes to "too generous government benefits"? http://mibi.deviantart.com/art/Death-and-Taxes-9410862 http://mibi.deviantart.com/art/Death-and-Taxes-9410862

Tangurena 17y ago

Government pensions can't be discharged in bankruptcy[1], nor can PBGC[2] take them over. Some rust belt communities are seeing 25% of tax revenues [3] going to pay retired police and school teachers even as the towns dwindle and get bulldozed like Flint, MI. Because courts routinely treat the 14th amendment, section 4, to mean that such debts cannot possibly be made to go away, then taxes will have to be raised just to pay past promises. Notes: 1 - Courts have routinely interpreted section 4 of the 14th Amendment to mean that governments cannot discharge debt in bankrupcties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni... 2 - PBCG is to pensions what FDIC is to bank accounts. Pension administrators pay an annual premium that ends up covering the pension in the event that the company goes tits up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension_Benefit_Guaranty_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension_Benefit_Guaranty_Corpor... 3 - The state of NJ is currently spending about 9% of tax revenues to retirees in the form of pensions and health care. A reasonable rule of thumb is that if a growing community is spending less than 10% of their tax revenues on pensions, then they either don't have one, or they're dangerously underfunding their current pension plan.