Socialized medicine does not work...

[danielpalos]

just love it when one of you lying fucking lefty welfare state assholes wants to tell us how to do things. You see you have to understand something here, a lot of us are not impressed with your little liberal 'healthcare system' as something to strive for and emulate, in fact I think it is rather something to avoid, so how about you shove your smug little healthcare system up your ass?


New Zealand’s healthcare crisis - World Socialist Web Site
A number of recent reports illustrate the growing crisis resulting from chronic underfunding of New Zealand’s public health system.

The National Party government repeatedly claims that it has made no cuts to health spending since the 2008 financial crisis. The reality is that public hospitals and other medical services throughout the country have been subject to severe austerity measures. Along with cuts to welfare and education, the underfunding of the health system is designed to transfer the burden of the economic crisis onto the backs of the working class, particularly the most vulnerable and in need of care.



WHO | New Zealand cuts health spending to control costs
New Zealand’s health-care system is undergoing a series of cutbacks to reduce costs, but critics are concerned that the health of people on low incomes and in some population groups may suffer. Rebecca Lancashire reports in our series on health financing.

Challenges and opportunities
The cost of providing health services through the current model is unsustainable in the long term.

Shit links. The first is from the World socialist website. The last one, you have cherrypicked one sentence from what is a generally optimistic piece....we can all do that. Try harder.

I picked the socialists since no body is better to critique socialized medicine than the socilaists. I picked the second one to show you have critics within your own country. I picked the third to highlight the obvious, your system didn't work, cuts had to be made, and even now it is projected to not work in the fiscal sense which means it doesn't work period.

You have a shit mind, shove your smug little healthcare system up your ass.

Here is something from Wikipedia:

In the UK, where government employees or government-employed sub-contractors deliver most health care, political interference is quite hard to discern. Most supply-side decisions are in practice under the control of medical practitioners and of boards comprising the medical profession.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine#Political_controversies_in_the_United_States

 

[Rustic]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

So what do you suggest? You flamers just post complaints and like to bitch. But you NEVER come up with answers. Just whining.

People should expect to pay for their shit, robin hood mentality is of the morality corrupt...

 

[Rustic]

Millions that live in urban areas expecting something for nothing

Depends if they work or not...

The fact remains any sort of socialism socialist medicine happens to be dozens of people taking out as compared to only one to a few paying in. No socialist entitlement program has worked in the history of the United States… Long-term

You ask ANYBODY on Medicare if they want to give it up. Go ahead. I know many people on Medicare or who have elderly parents on Medicare: Republicans, Dems, Independents and they love it. To the last person.

But you just keep a bitchin' and offer no solutions. You're a monkey for the GOP.

I would have no problem giving up what i have paid in(SS,medicare/cade) if i could not have to pay in anymore... the system will be bankrupt long before i am old enough to qualify.

 

[Dr Grump]

I picked the socialists since no body is better to critique socialized medicine than the socilaists. I picked the second one to show you have critics within your own country. I picked the third to highlight the obvious, your system didn't work, cuts had to be made, and even now it is projected to not work in the fiscal sense which means it doesn't work period.

You have a shit mind, shove your smug little healthcare system up your ass.

As I said, Shit links.

Our system is better than yours. Why? We dont bitch and moan like you rubes

 

[danielpalos]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

So what do you suggest? You flamers just post complaints and like to bitch. But you NEVER come up with answers. Just whining.

People should expect to pay for their shit, robin hood mentality is of the morality corrupt...

who is paying for our War on Drugs?

 

[jillian]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

So what do you suggest? You flamers just post complaints and like to bitch. But you NEVER come up with answers. Just whining.

People should expect to pay for their shit, robin hood mentality is of the morality corrupt...

every civilized country in the world except for us makes certain that their population has health care.

We can't help it if this country is infested with roaches like you.But maybe someday you'll figure out that our system is only good for insurance companies.

rightwingnuts are so duped.

 

[Rustic]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

So what do you suggest? You flamers just post complaints and like to bitch. But you NEVER come up with answers. Just whining.

People should expect to pay for their shit, robin hood mentality is of the morality corrupt...

every civilized country in the world except for us makes certain that their population has health care.

We can't help it if this country is infested with roaches like you.But maybe someday you'll figure out that our system is only good for insurance companies.

rightwingnuts are so duped.

It's deadbeats like yourself that want something for nothing

 

[NCC1701]

I picked the socialists since no body is better to critique socialized medicine than the socilaists. I picked the second one to show you have critics within your own country. I picked the third to highlight the obvious, your system didn't work, cuts had to be made, and even now it is projected to not work in the fiscal sense which means it doesn't work period.

You have a shit mind, shove your smug little healthcare system up your ass.

As I said, Shit links.

Our system is better than yours. Why? We dont bitch and moan like you rubes

You rank yours better by your retarded claim that you bitch less? Smug AND stupid

 

[NCC1701]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

So what do you suggest? You flamers just post complaints and like to bitch. But you NEVER come up with answers. Just whining.

People should expect to pay for their shit, robin hood mentality is of the morality corrupt...

every civilized country in the world except for us makes certain that their population has health care.

We can't help it if this country is infested with roaches like you.But maybe someday you'll figure out that our system is only good for insurance companies.

rightwingnuts are so duped.

bullshit you dumb liberal twat, there are shortages that fail to meet demand everywhere because of socialism, and we already have a failed socialized system that spends more per capita than almost everyone.

 

[NCC1701]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

So what do you suggest? You flamers just post complaints and like to bitch. But you NEVER come up with answers. Just whining.

deadbeats get nothing, it is simple and effective

 

[Dr Grump]

[
You rank yours better by your retarded claim that you bitch less? Smug AND stupid

I'll tell you something for free. If it was a shit system I'd be bitching. I'm not. You right-wing loons are. Why?

 

[Andylusion]

My father is 76, and he can run circles around me. He still lifts weights.

What does this have to do with the quality of health care? Do you think the elderly in Japan are only active because some doctor runs to their house every morning and forces them to be active? Come on. Grow up.

what does your anecdote have to do with reality! Am I to accept it just because of your purported "honesty?' Have you not considered that Japanese have access to healthcare without having to worry about financial ruin if they get sick? having that free access means the elderly are more likely to get regular checkups and preventative care. That is the link that you have been avoiding!

So now your are claiming that even wtih Medicare, a socialized gov-care system that applies to all the elderly in the US today, that even with that, Medicare sucks so bad, that Japanese elderly have it better?

Isn't the argument from all the left-wingers since Bernie said it, to have Medicare for all, and now your are telling me that even with Medicare and Medicaid for that matter, that they are not using any health care because they are worried about financial ruin with Medicare and Medicaid?

Can you people ever keep a consistent argument that doesn't flip flop every time you are presented with new evidence?

MEDICARE is only available to those who are eligible to draw social security and then it only covers 80 % of most procedures. The patient is liable for the rest.Further, some hospitals and doctors started refusing to accept MEDICARE because they could not overcharge the patient on that platform. Further, if I remember correctly, time limits on hospital admittances. Medicare will only pay for about 20 days. I will have to double check that but off the top of my head I remember that happening to my mother. My point is that MEDICARE, is not so all encompassing and wonderful as you may think. But I would think that in a totally socialized medical environment, the attention to a patients health isn't rushed by financial worries or profit margins.

No, that's my point. I never said Medicare is so wonderful. Everything you said, is exactly my point.

Here you have a socialized system, and even after all the limitations you just mentioned.... it's still going broke. It's funded by taxes payers, it's funded by general revenue, it's funded by medicare premiums, it only covers a % of most procedures, it has limits on admittance, it will only pay for 20 days or whatever....

Everything you mentioned.... and yet..... IT IS STILL GOING BROKE.

This is socialism. This is how it works. This is what happens. No matter what system you put in place... eventually you run out of other people's money.

You shifted the narrative a bit. We were talking about Japanese healthcare compared to our Medicare . You were lecturing me about flip flopping about medicare in the face of your purported "new evidence."

: Have you not considered that Japanese have access to healthcare without having to worry about financial ruin if they get sick? having that free access means the elderly are more likely to get regular checkups and preventative care. That is the link that you have been avoiding.

:"So now your are claiming that even wtih Medicare, a socialized gov-care system that applies to all the elderly in the US today, that even with that, Medicare sucks so bad, that Japanese elderly have it better?"

I responded by showing how MEDICARE is not totally socialized and that either additional GAP insurance had to be obtained to make up the difference. or the patient would have to Use personal assets. In either case that impact on fixed incomes of poorer people could become a serious hardship. And for younger working people, not yet old enough for medicare but with employee benefits, co-pays could disrupt their budgets for years. In Japan, apparently your age wouldn't matter and with "free" healthcare, I would expect that preventative medicine would be utilized far more frequently among younger Japanese. That would translate into a population that lives longer on average.

Pointing out the fact that we have a socialized, and it is a socialized system.... doesn't mean "it's so wonderful", that is the claim I was fighting. Medicare is failing, and it will go broke unless it is fixed, no matter how many people think it's wonderful.

Further, just because you have to pay some money, doesn't mean it's not socialized. Medicare is 100% a socialized system. Owned, or controlled by the government, is a "socialized" system. Medicare dictates to doctors how much they can charge. That's a socialized system, whether you pay part of the bill or not.

A Capitalist system is a system where the government has absolutely no control over prices, services, or anything.

Have you not considered that Japanese have access to healthcare without having to worry about financial ruin if they get sick? having that free access means the elderly are more likely to get regular checkups and preventative care. That is the link that you have been avoiding.

This statement is entirely false, as far as I know.
"MEDICARE is only available to those who are eligible to draw social security and then it only covers 80 % of most procedures"

The implication is that Japan covers 100%? No. Wrong.

Citizens of Japan are expected to pay 30% of the cost. Not 20% like Medicaid. So the cost burden is HIGHER in Japan on the public, than it is in the US under Medicaid.

Moreover, that higher price, doesn't mean they have less taxes, but actually far more taxes.

The Federal government pays 25% of health care costs, which is why people making $50K a year can expect to pay 30% in taxes.

The local governments pay 12% of the health care costs, which comes from the local people in higher local taxes.

The Employer pays 20% of the cost, which comes from the people in lower wages.

You pay 28% of the cost from the public in insurance contributions.

And the remaining 15%, is out of pocket expenses. This includes you paying fees for being in the hospital, fees for seeing a doctor, fees for getting drugs, fees for just about all aspects of using the health care system.

Sounds like Medicare? It is. Don't tell me the reason the elder live longer is because of some myth that they don't pay anything for care. They do. They all do. Everyone has to pay for health care. They are paying more there, than our elderly are here.

Not true. Sorry.

 

[JQPublic1]

Millions that live in urban areas expecting something for nothing

Depends if they work or not...

The fact remains any sort of socialism socialist medicine happens to be dozens of people taking out as compared to only one to a few paying in. No socialist entitlement program has worked in the history of the United States… Long-term

You ask ANYBODY on Medicare if they want to give it up. Go ahead. I know many people on Medicare or who have elderly parents on Medicare: Republicans, Dems, Independents and they love it. To the last person.

But you just keep a bitchin' and offer no solutions. You're a monkey for the GOP.

I would have no problem giving up what i have paid in(SS,medicare/cade) if i could not have to pay in anymore... the system will be bankrupt long before i am old enough to qualify.

Neither Social Security or Medicare is going bankrupt. Here is a link to an earlier exchange that explains why not:

Socialized medicine does not work...

 

[Andylusion]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

Um. You do know that the first example of socialized healthcare was in the 1880's in Germany right?

Socialized medicine makes life an living hell...

You must have a hell of a hammer to get that square peg in that round hole.

Top 10 Countries with the Best Health Care in 2016 - The Gazette Review

fuck the nanny state it's no way to live

So you have no evidence to support your contention?

Would you like to know how Obamacare could have worked? Let's use Blue Cross as an example. Blue Cross has doctors in every state that are in one network or another. Yet if I have Blue Cross in Georgia then doctors in Alabama are out of network, even if they are in a Blue Cross network in Alabama.

The answer is national networks. All Doctors in the Blue Cross network are in network. When I was young the businesses had stickers in the window showing what credit cards they accepted. Visa, Master Card, American Express, and Diners Club were the big ones.

Imagine how easy it would be if you went to a Doctor and saw similar stickers showing what insurances they are in network for.

This would have made medical treatment easier and cheaper. Would that have been nanny state bullshit?

You are like Sam. You don't like green eggs and ham. You won't even consider it. Nations with it have better medical care, longer life expectancy, and less infant mortality. But they totally suck. Because you said so.

Different states have different laws governing how health care works. In some states, the cost is lower, and thus cheaper. In others, the cost is higher, and thus is more expensive to the consumers.

Having a national system will eliminate in-network out-of-network systems. That's true. But that's not necessarily good.

I could be, if the government lowered regulations, but that isn't likely. What is more likely, is that it will drive up regulations. This would not lower cost for anyone, but raises costs for those who previously had lower costing insurance.

Moreover, if people can go to any doctor and have their treatment covered, then as more people go to more expensive doctors, rather than lower costing doctors, the results would be that this would drive up costs on the insurance company, which would then pass those higher costs on to the premium payers.

This is exactly why in many government systems, they assign you a doctor. In a free-market capitalist system, the highest quality, and thus highest demand doctors, would command higher prices. This would cause people to diversify which doctor they go to. Newer doctors with less experience would charge a lower price, thus allowing more people to afford a doctor visit.

But under a socialized system, where everyone charges the same, everyone would go only to the best doctor. Thus one doctor would be swamped with 3 years waiting lists, and other doctors would have a few patients a month.

So the government starts mandating people to use different doctors.

 

[Andylusion]

So now your are claiming that even wtih Medicare, a socialized gov-care system that applies to all the elderly in the US today, that even with that, Medicare sucks so bad, that Japanese elderly have it better?

Isn't the argument from all the left-wingers since Bernie said it, to have Medicare for all, and now your are telling me that even with Medicare and Medicaid for that matter, that they are not using any health care because they are worried about financial ruin with Medicare and Medicaid?

Can you people ever keep a consistent argument that doesn't flip flop every time you are presented with new evidence?

MEDICARE is only available to those who are eligible to draw social security and then it only covers 80 % of most procedures. The patient is liable for the rest.Further, some hospitals and doctors started refusing to accept MEDICARE because they could not overcharge the patient on that platform. Further, if I remember correctly, time limits on hospital admittances. Medicare will only pay for about 20 days. I will have to double check that but off the top of my head I remember that happening to my mother. My point is that MEDICARE, is not so all encompassing and wonderful as you may think. But I would think that in a totally socialized medical environment, the attention to a patients health isn't rushed by financial worries or profit margins.

No, that's my point. I never said Medicare is so wonderful. Everything you said, is exactly my point.

Here you have a socialized system, and even after all the limitations you just mentioned.... it's still going broke. It's funded by taxes payers, it's funded by general revenue, it's funded by medicare premiums, it only covers a % of most procedures, it has limits on admittance, it will only pay for 20 days or whatever....

Everything you mentioned.... and yet..... IT IS STILL GOING BROKE.

This is socialism. This is how it works. This is what happens. No matter what system you put in place... eventually you run out of other people's money.

Where did you get the notion that Social Security is going broke? Did you bother to go to thatSSA website and seek the truth. Apparently you did not or you would have seen this: click the spoier to learn why!

Spoiler: SS is not going broke

As a result of changes to Social Security enacted in 1983, benefits are now expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted.1 At the point where the reserves are used up, continuing taxes are expected to be enough to pay 76 percent of scheduled benefits. Thus, the Congress will need to make changes to the scheduled benefits and revenue sources for the program in the future. The Social Security Board of Trustees project that changes equivalent to an immediate reduction in benefits of about 13 percent, or an immediate increase in the combined payroll tax rate from 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent, or some combination of these changes, would be sufficient to allow full payment of the scheduled benefits for the next 75 years.

Since the inception of the Social Security program in 1935, scheduled benefits have always been paid on a timely basis through a series of modifications in the law that will continue. Social Security provides a basic level of monthly income to workers and their families after the workers have reached old age, become disabled, or died. The program now provides benefits to over 50 million people and is financed with the payroll taxes from over 150 million workers and their employers. Further modifications of the program are a certainty as the Congress continues to evolve and shape this program, reflecting the desires of each new generation.

This article describes the financial status of the Social Security program, including an analysis of the concepts of solvency and sustainability and the relationship of Social Security to the overall federal unified budget. The future is uncertain in many respects, and based on new information, projections of the financial status of the Social Security program vary somewhat over time. What is virtually certain is that the benefits that almost all Americans become entitled to and most depend on will be continued into the future with modifications deemed appropriate by their elected representatives in the Congress.

First off, look back through the last dozen posts, where do you see Social Security even mentioned? When did I ever say "social security is going broke"?

Are we talking about Medicare or Social Security? Because up until this last post of yours, I said Medicare over and over.

Second, you posted information that directly contradicts your own claim.

You posted "SS is not going broke" and then the very next sentence... "until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted"

What do you think "reserves become exhausted" means?

I know public schools suck.... but you are telling me that you can't logically understand the concept that "reserves become exhausted" means it's running out of money, and running out of money, means it's "going broke"?

How can you come on this forum, and posted a statement, and then post as support of that very statement, information that directly contradicts the statement made?

And worse.... so other idiot 'thumbed up' that post?

This.... this right here.... this is why American will destroy itself. People this stupid, are determining the direction of the country. It's no wonder everything is getting worse year after year.

FICA is the Social security and Medicare taxes combined. And, indeed they are handled by two different Trust funds. But according to the information I posted under the spoiler tag, the use of the phrase"going broke" to describe the future of either program is not an accurate assessment. Again, in your haste you overlooked the word "reserves." That has meaning: the term is describing excess funds. That means in 2037 the SS fund will temporarily break even when the reserves are exhausted. IN other words the fund will be paying out as much as it is taking in. That doesn't mean it will be bankrupt since, as stated, enough funds will be available from payroll taxes to make 76% of its obligations. It would be incumbent upon Congress to either reduce the benefit by 13% or increase payroll taxes to make up the difference. If , OTOH, the GOP tries to privatize either SS or Medicare, there will be a civil uprising so severe they may never recover from it. Middle men would be perceived as thieves robbing beneficiaries to bolster profits.

The Medicare fund is no different, it isn't going broke either:

Claims by some policymakers that the Medicare program is nearing “bankruptcy” are highly misleading. Although Medicare faces financing challenges, the program is not on the verge of bankruptcy or ceasing to operate. Such charges represent misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of Medicare’s finances.

Medicare’s financing challenges would be much greater without the health reform law (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA), which substantially improved the program’s financial outlook. Repealing the ACA, a course of action promoted by some who simultaneously claim that the program is approaching “bankruptcy,” would worsen Medicare’s financial situation.

The 2016 report of Medicare’s trustees finds that Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund will remain solvent — that is, able to pay 100 percent of the costs of the hospital insurance coverage that Medicare provides — through 2028. Even in 2028, when the HI trust fund is projected for exhaustion, incoming payroll taxes and other revenue will still be sufficient to pay 87 percent of Medicare hospital insurance costs.[1] The share of costs covered by dedicated revenues will decline slowly to 79 percent in 2040 and then rise gradually to 86 percent in 2090. This shortfall will need to be closed through raising revenues, slowing the growth in costs, or most likely both. But the Medicare hospital insurance program will not run out of all financial resources and cease to operate after 2028, as the “bankruptcy” term may suggest.

The 2028 date does not apply to Medicare coverage for physician and outpatient costs or to the Medicare prescription drug benefit; these parts of Medicare do not face insolvency and cannot run short of funds. These parts of Medicare are financed through the program’s Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) trust fund, which consists of two separate accounts — one for Medicare Part B, which pays for physician and other outpatient health services, and one for Part D, which pays for outpatient prescription drugs. Premiums for Part B and Part D are set each year at levels that cover about 25 percent of costs; general revenues pay the remaining 75 percent of costs.[2] The trustees’ report does not project that these parts of Medicare will become insolvent at any point — because they can’t. The SMI trust fund always has sufficient financing to cover Part B and Part D costs, because the beneficiary premiums and general revenue contributions are specifically set at levels to assure this is the case. SMI cannot go “bankrupt.”

If you run out of excess reserves, that is "going broke".

Many people have gone through bankruptcy, while still having an income. No one ever said "well I still make money, so I'm not really.... broke broke.... I'm just out of reserves".

You are splitting hairs to avoid the fact you are just simply wrong. Just flat out... you are wrong.

What is even worse than that, is the fact that we would end up in a crisis long before the 'trust funds' ran out of 'reserves'. Why? Because all those trust funds have, is IOUs. They don't have stock, or land, or assets. They have IOUs. And from whom? The Federal government.

Are you stupid? Have you seen the current budget and debt of the Federal Government? We are borrowing $600 Billion, right now, and that's with the Federal government GETTING money from the trust funds. When they stop getting money, and the Trust funds need money back, where do you think that money is going to come from? We're going to start borrowing trillions again?

And here's the kicker... what happens when people stop lending money to the Federal government? The entire system implodes.

When you say that these funds will cover 87% of costs... that's on the basis that the economy is stable, at current revenue conditions. Did you miss what happened 2007? Tax revenue fell from $2.51 Trillion to $2.1 Trillion.

If you claim that we can fund 87% of social security from tax revenue on the basis of 2007 taxes... what happens in 2010, when revenue fell 20%? You are not paying out 87% of benefits anymore, are you? Nope. By the way, 87% of the average SS check of $1,300 a month, is $1,100. You think that won't hurt some people? That alone will harm the economy more.

You people.... Greece didn't teach the left-wing nothing. You guys are more ignorant than you ever were before the crash.

 

[Andylusion]

Millions that live in urban areas expecting something for nothing

Depends if they work or not...

The fact remains any sort of socialism socialist medicine happens to be dozens of people taking out as compared to only one to a few paying in. No socialist entitlement program has worked in the history of the United States… Long-term

You ask ANYBODY on Medicare if they want to give it up. Go ahead. I know many people on Medicare or who have elderly parents on Medicare: Republicans, Dems, Independents and they love it. To the last person.

But you just keep a bitchin' and offer no solutions. You're a monkey for the GOP.

Because there is no solution. There is no 'fix' for socialism. It fails every single time it's tried, throughout all the nations of the world, and throughout all history.

There is no 'fix' for this. Never was. Never will be.

You act like if we want something to work, then magically it will, simply because we demand that it work. This is like Atlas Shrugged. Read the book.

Just because you demand eating cake and ice cream every day for every meal, make you fit and health, doesn't mean that's going to happen. And screaming that we don't a 'fix' for your cake and ice cream diet, doesn't change the fact your diet doesn't work, and while it will be great fun for a while, in the end it will kill people.

Socialism doesn't work. You want to see how Medicare and Social Security will end up? Look at Greece.

You want a better system? Capitalism. Works every single time it's tried, without exception. Deregulate health care, and cut taxes, let people buy their own health care.

But you don't want that. You want your system, the socialist system to work, and you demand we find a fix for it. There is no fix for it. It's a bad system that never works.

 

[Andylusion]

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2016/709letter_DI_Senate_2016.pdf

So after responding to the mindless crap here, I happen to notice this letter to the Senate. The trustees are required by law, to inform congress, when reserves are going to fall below 20% of expenses. That is happening right now for Disability Insurance, and the rest later.

Only a mindless left winger can see a graph showing 0% as a future outcome, and conclude.... "it's not going broke!".

Stop with the unending ignorance. The facts win, over your opinion.

 

[JQPublic1]

MEDICARE is only available to those who are eligible to draw social security and then it only covers 80 % of most procedures. The patient is liable for the rest.Further, some hospitals and doctors started refusing to accept MEDICARE because they could not overcharge the patient on that platform. Further, if I remember correctly, time limits on hospital admittances. Medicare will only pay for about 20 days. I will have to double check that but off the top of my head I remember that happening to my mother. My point is that MEDICARE, is not so all encompassing and wonderful as you may think. But I would think that in a totally socialized medical environment, the attention to a patients health isn't rushed by financial worries or profit margins.

No, that's my point. I never said Medicare is so wonderful. Everything you said, is exactly my point.

Here you have a socialized system, and even after all the limitations you just mentioned.... it's still going broke. It's funded by taxes payers, it's funded by general revenue, it's funded by medicare premiums, it only covers a % of most procedures, it has limits on admittance, it will only pay for 20 days or whatever....

Everything you mentioned.... and yet..... IT IS STILL GOING BROKE.

This is socialism. This is how it works. This is what happens. No matter what system you put in place... eventually you run out of other people's money.

Where did you get the notion that Social Security is going broke? Did you bother to go to thatSSA website and seek the truth. Apparently you did not or you would have seen this: click the spoier to learn why!

Spoiler: SS is not going broke

As a result of changes to Social Security enacted in 1983, benefits are now expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted.1 At the point where the reserves are used up, continuing taxes are expected to be enough to pay 76 percent of scheduled benefits. Thus, the Congress will need to make changes to the scheduled benefits and revenue sources for the program in the future. The Social Security Board of Trustees project that changes equivalent to an immediate reduction in benefits of about 13 percent, or an immediate increase in the combined payroll tax rate from 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent, or some combination of these changes, would be sufficient to allow full payment of the scheduled benefits for the next 75 years.

Since the inception of the Social Security program in 1935, scheduled benefits have always been paid on a timely basis through a series of modifications in the law that will continue. Social Security provides a basic level of monthly income to workers and their families after the workers have reached old age, become disabled, or died. The program now provides benefits to over 50 million people and is financed with the payroll taxes from over 150 million workers and their employers. Further modifications of the program are a certainty as the Congress continues to evolve and shape this program, reflecting the desires of each new generation.

This article describes the financial status of the Social Security program, including an analysis of the concepts of solvency and sustainability and the relationship of Social Security to the overall federal unified budget. The future is uncertain in many respects, and based on new information, projections of the financial status of the Social Security program vary somewhat over time. What is virtually certain is that the benefits that almost all Americans become entitled to and most depend on will be continued into the future with modifications deemed appropriate by their elected representatives in the Congress.

First off, look back through the last dozen posts, where do you see Social Security even mentioned? When did I ever say "social security is going broke"?

Are we talking about Medicare or Social Security? Because up until this last post of yours, I said Medicare over and over.

Second, you posted information that directly contradicts your own claim.

You posted "SS is not going broke" and then the very next sentence... "until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted"

What do you think "reserves become exhausted" means?

I know public schools suck.... but you are telling me that you can't logically understand the concept that "reserves become exhausted" means it's running out of money, and running out of money, means it's "going broke"?

How can you come on this forum, and posted a statement, and then post as support of that very statement, information that directly contradicts the statement made?

And worse.... so other idiot 'thumbed up' that post?

This.... this right here.... this is why American will destroy itself. People this stupid, are determining the direction of the country. It's no wonder everything is getting worse year after year.

FICA is the Social security and Medicare taxes combined. And, indeed they are handled by two different Trust funds. But according to the information I posted under the spoiler tag, the use of the phrase"going broke" to describe the future of either program is not an accurate assessment. Again, in your haste you overlooked the word "reserves." That has meaning: the term is describing excess funds. That means in 2037 the SS fund will temporarily break even when the reserves are exhausted. IN other words the fund will be paying out as much as it is taking in. That doesn't mean it will be bankrupt since, as stated, enough funds will be available from payroll taxes to make 76% of its obligations. It would be incumbent upon Congress to either reduce the benefit by 13% or increase payroll taxes to make up the difference. If , OTOH, the GOP tries to privatize either SS or Medicare, there will be a civil uprising so severe they may never recover from it. Middle men would be perceived as thieves robbing beneficiaries to bolster profits.

The Medicare fund is no different, it isn't going broke either:

Claims by some policymakers that the Medicare program is nearing “bankruptcy” are highly misleading. Although Medicare faces financing challenges, the program is not on the verge of bankruptcy or ceasing to operate. Such charges represent misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of Medicare’s finances.

Medicare’s financing challenges would be much greater without the health reform law (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA), which substantially improved the program’s financial outlook. Repealing the ACA, a course of action promoted by some who simultaneously claim that the program is approaching “bankruptcy,” would worsen Medicare’s financial situation.

The 2016 report of Medicare’s trustees finds that Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund will remain solvent — that is, able to pay 100 percent of the costs of the hospital insurance coverage that Medicare provides — through 2028. Even in 2028, when the HI trust fund is projected for exhaustion, incoming payroll taxes and other revenue will still be sufficient to pay 87 percent of Medicare hospital insurance costs.[1] The share of costs covered by dedicated revenues will decline slowly to 79 percent in 2040 and then rise gradually to 86 percent in 2090. This shortfall will need to be closed through raising revenues, slowing the growth in costs, or most likely both. But the Medicare hospital insurance program will not run out of all financial resources and cease to operate after 2028, as the “bankruptcy” term may suggest.

The 2028 date does not apply to Medicare coverage for physician and outpatient costs or to the Medicare prescription drug benefit; these parts of Medicare do not face insolvency and cannot run short of funds. These parts of Medicare are financed through the program’s Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) trust fund, which consists of two separate accounts — one for Medicare Part B, which pays for physician and other outpatient health services, and one for Part D, which pays for outpatient prescription drugs. Premiums for Part B and Part D are set each year at levels that cover about 25 percent of costs; general revenues pay the remaining 75 percent of costs.[2] The trustees’ report does not project that these parts of Medicare will become insolvent at any point — because they can’t. The SMI trust fund always has sufficient financing to cover Part B and Part D costs, because the beneficiary premiums and general revenue contributions are specifically set at levels to assure this is the case. SMI cannot go “bankrupt.”

If you run out of excess reserves, that is "going broke".

Many people have gone through bankruptcy, while still having an income. No one ever said "well I still make money, so I'm not really.... broke broke.... I'm just out of reserves".

You are splitting hairs to avoid the fact you are just simply wrong. Just flat out... you are wrong.

What is even worse than that, is the fact that we would end up in a crisis long before the 'trust funds' ran out of 'reserves'. Why? Because all those trust funds have, is IOUs. They don't have stock, or land, or assets. They have IOUs. And from whom? The Federal government.

Are you stupid? Have you seen the current budget and debt of the Federal Government? We are borrowing $600 Billion, right now, and that's with the Federal government GETTING money from the trust funds. When they stop getting money, and the Trust funds need money back, where do you think that money is going to come from? We're going to start borrowing trillions again?

And here's the kicker... what happens when people stop lending money to the Federal government? The entire system implodes.

When you say that these funds will cover 87% of costs... that's on the basis that the economy is stable, at current revenue conditions. Did you miss what happened 2007? Tax revenue fell from $2.51 Trillion to $2.1 Trillion.

If you claim that we can fund 87% of social security from tax revenue on the basis of 2007 taxes... what happens in 2010, when revenue fell 20%? You are not paying out 87% of benefits anymore, are you? Nope. By the way, 87% of the average SS check of $1,300 a month, is $1,100. You think that won't hurt some people? That alone will harm the economy more.

You people.... Greece didn't teach the left-wing nothing. You guys are more ignorant than you ever were before the crash.

You are just rambling. You have't backed up a thing you have said with verifiable sources, Anything you say is suspect because you tend to overlook key words in sentences and go off on a tangent the author never intended. Without reading your sources, i can't accept anything you say as fact.

 

[Andylusion]

No, that's my point. I never said Medicare is so wonderful. Everything you said, is exactly my point.

Here you have a socialized system, and even after all the limitations you just mentioned.... it's still going broke. It's funded by taxes payers, it's funded by general revenue, it's funded by medicare premiums, it only covers a % of most procedures, it has limits on admittance, it will only pay for 20 days or whatever....

Everything you mentioned.... and yet..... IT IS STILL GOING BROKE.

This is socialism. This is how it works. This is what happens. No matter what system you put in place... eventually you run out of other people's money.

Where did you get the notion that Social Security is going broke? Did you bother to go to thatSSA website and seek the truth. Apparently you did not or you would have seen this: click the spoier to learn why!

Spoiler: SS is not going broke

As a result of changes to Social Security enacted in 1983, benefits are now expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted.1 At the point where the reserves are used up, continuing taxes are expected to be enough to pay 76 percent of scheduled benefits. Thus, the Congress will need to make changes to the scheduled benefits and revenue sources for the program in the future. The Social Security Board of Trustees project that changes equivalent to an immediate reduction in benefits of about 13 percent, or an immediate increase in the combined payroll tax rate from 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent, or some combination of these changes, would be sufficient to allow full payment of the scheduled benefits for the next 75 years.

Since the inception of the Social Security program in 1935, scheduled benefits have always been paid on a timely basis through a series of modifications in the law that will continue. Social Security provides a basic level of monthly income to workers and their families after the workers have reached old age, become disabled, or died. The program now provides benefits to over 50 million people and is financed with the payroll taxes from over 150 million workers and their employers. Further modifications of the program are a certainty as the Congress continues to evolve and shape this program, reflecting the desires of each new generation.

This article describes the financial status of the Social Security program, including an analysis of the concepts of solvency and sustainability and the relationship of Social Security to the overall federal unified budget. The future is uncertain in many respects, and based on new information, projections of the financial status of the Social Security program vary somewhat over time. What is virtually certain is that the benefits that almost all Americans become entitled to and most depend on will be continued into the future with modifications deemed appropriate by their elected representatives in the Congress.

First off, look back through the last dozen posts, where do you see Social Security even mentioned? When did I ever say "social security is going broke"?

Are we talking about Medicare or Social Security? Because up until this last post of yours, I said Medicare over and over.

Second, you posted information that directly contradicts your own claim.

You posted "SS is not going broke" and then the very next sentence... "until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted"

What do you think "reserves become exhausted" means?

I know public schools suck.... but you are telling me that you can't logically understand the concept that "reserves become exhausted" means it's running out of money, and running out of money, means it's "going broke"?

How can you come on this forum, and posted a statement, and then post as support of that very statement, information that directly contradicts the statement made?

And worse.... so other idiot 'thumbed up' that post?

This.... this right here.... this is why American will destroy itself. People this stupid, are determining the direction of the country. It's no wonder everything is getting worse year after year.

FICA is the Social security and Medicare taxes combined. And, indeed they are handled by two different Trust funds. But according to the information I posted under the spoiler tag, the use of the phrase"going broke" to describe the future of either program is not an accurate assessment. Again, in your haste you overlooked the word "reserves." That has meaning: the term is describing excess funds. That means in 2037 the SS fund will temporarily break even when the reserves are exhausted. IN other words the fund will be paying out as much as it is taking in. That doesn't mean it will be bankrupt since, as stated, enough funds will be available from payroll taxes to make 76% of its obligations. It would be incumbent upon Congress to either reduce the benefit by 13% or increase payroll taxes to make up the difference. If , OTOH, the GOP tries to privatize either SS or Medicare, there will be a civil uprising so severe they may never recover from it. Middle men would be perceived as thieves robbing beneficiaries to bolster profits.

The Medicare fund is no different, it isn't going broke either:

Claims by some policymakers that the Medicare program is nearing “bankruptcy” are highly misleading. Although Medicare faces financing challenges, the program is not on the verge of bankruptcy or ceasing to operate. Such charges represent misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of Medicare’s finances.

Medicare’s financing challenges would be much greater without the health reform law (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA), which substantially improved the program’s financial outlook. Repealing the ACA, a course of action promoted by some who simultaneously claim that the program is approaching “bankruptcy,” would worsen Medicare’s financial situation.

The 2016 report of Medicare’s trustees finds that Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund will remain solvent — that is, able to pay 100 percent of the costs of the hospital insurance coverage that Medicare provides — through 2028. Even in 2028, when the HI trust fund is projected for exhaustion, incoming payroll taxes and other revenue will still be sufficient to pay 87 percent of Medicare hospital insurance costs.[1] The share of costs covered by dedicated revenues will decline slowly to 79 percent in 2040 and then rise gradually to 86 percent in 2090. This shortfall will need to be closed through raising revenues, slowing the growth in costs, or most likely both. But the Medicare hospital insurance program will not run out of all financial resources and cease to operate after 2028, as the “bankruptcy” term may suggest.

The 2028 date does not apply to Medicare coverage for physician and outpatient costs or to the Medicare prescription drug benefit; these parts of Medicare do not face insolvency and cannot run short of funds. These parts of Medicare are financed through the program’s Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) trust fund, which consists of two separate accounts — one for Medicare Part B, which pays for physician and other outpatient health services, and one for Part D, which pays for outpatient prescription drugs. Premiums for Part B and Part D are set each year at levels that cover about 25 percent of costs; general revenues pay the remaining 75 percent of costs.[2] The trustees’ report does not project that these parts of Medicare will become insolvent at any point — because they can’t. The SMI trust fund always has sufficient financing to cover Part B and Part D costs, because the beneficiary premiums and general revenue contributions are specifically set at levels to assure this is the case. SMI cannot go “bankrupt.”

If you run out of excess reserves, that is "going broke".

Many people have gone through bankruptcy, while still having an income. No one ever said "well I still make money, so I'm not really.... broke broke.... I'm just out of reserves".

You are splitting hairs to avoid the fact you are just simply wrong. Just flat out... you are wrong.

What is even worse than that, is the fact that we would end up in a crisis long before the 'trust funds' ran out of 'reserves'. Why? Because all those trust funds have, is IOUs. They don't have stock, or land, or assets. They have IOUs. And from whom? The Federal government.

Are you stupid? Have you seen the current budget and debt of the Federal Government? We are borrowing $600 Billion, right now, and that's with the Federal government GETTING money from the trust funds. When they stop getting money, and the Trust funds need money back, where do you think that money is going to come from? We're going to start borrowing trillions again?

And here's the kicker... what happens when people stop lending money to the Federal government? The entire system implodes.

When you say that these funds will cover 87% of costs... that's on the basis that the economy is stable, at current revenue conditions. Did you miss what happened 2007? Tax revenue fell from $2.51 Trillion to $2.1 Trillion.

If you claim that we can fund 87% of social security from tax revenue on the basis of 2007 taxes... what happens in 2010, when revenue fell 20%? You are not paying out 87% of benefits anymore, are you? Nope. By the way, 87% of the average SS check of $1,300 a month, is $1,100. You think that won't hurt some people? That alone will harm the economy more.

You people.... Greece didn't teach the left-wing nothing. You guys are more ignorant than you ever were before the crash.

You are just rambling. You have't backed up a thing you have said with verifiable sources, Anything you say is suspect because you tend to overlook key words in sentences and go off on a tangent the author never intended. Without reading your sources, i can't accept anything you say as fact.

As if I care. Did I ever indicate that your opinion of what you think is fact or not matters?

If you think I'm lying, fine. Whatever. I got other things to do. I'll talk to other people on this thread.

 

[JQPublic1]

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2016/709letter_DI_Senate_2016.pdf

So after responding to the mindless crap here, I happen to notice this letter to the Senate. The trustees are required by law, to inform congress, when reserves are going to fall below 20% of expenses. That is happening right now for Disability Insurance, and the rest later.

View attachment 113340
Only a mindless left winger can see a graph showing 0% as a future outcome, and conclude.... "it's not going broke!".

Stop with the unending ignorance. The facts win, over your opinion.

Are you sincerely ignorant or conscientiously stupid? That is the question. Your graph validates everything I quoted the SSA positing on their website. Do you think hey would post a graph that contradicts their own report???? DUHHH! The zero represents the year the "reserves are depleted" but the system won't be "broke" because millions of workers will still be paying into it. And when all the baby boomers die out in the next 20 years or so, the reserves will start to rise again.
IN the interim, though, Congress will have to act by either raising the FICA taxes or reducing individual benefits in conjunction with raising the minimum retirement age.
Theer is another more diabolical option. The government might find some way to liquidate everyone over 60...