US Medicare funding under threat

[Damocles]

It seems like just weeks ago that Cypress and Dunheap were telling me that this is no crisis, no reason to fix SS existed and we were insane to think that it may need some adjustments, that Medicare was efficiently ran and nearly perfect... *sigh*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8047355.stm

The US social security and Medicare system, which provide pensions and health care for older people,are set to run out of money sooner than expected.

New estimates show that the Medicare trust fund, which pays for hospital care, will run out of money by 2017, and is already running at a deficit.

Social security funds for pensions will be exhausted by 2037, four years earlier than previously projected.

More at link...

[Bonestorm]

Medicare is certainly facing a funding crisis. I've never claimed otherwise. In fact, I pointed this out when everyone was running around complaining about the Social Security "crisis" while no one was saying peep about Medicare. The problem is with the skyrocketing costs of healthcare generally. You deal with Medicare by dealing with healthcare as a general matter.

Social Security, on the other hand, looks a little bleaker than before but is still not anywhere near a crisis. According to the report Social Security can pay full benefits through 2037 and 75% of benefits into perpetuity. A little tweaking can resolve whatever funding issues face Social Security. And again, I never said that there was "no reason to fix Social Security." Instead, I argued that there is no crisis and that the fix being promoted by you and your was worse that the problem to the extent there is one.

[Damocles]

Medicare is certainly facing a funding crisis. I've never claimed otherwise. In fact, I pointed this out when everyone was running around complaining about the Social Security "crisis" while no one was saying peep about Medicare. The problem is with the skyrocketing costs of healthcare generally. You deal with Medicare by dealing with healthcare as a general matter.

Social Security, on the other hand, looks a little bleaker than before but is still not anywhere near a crisis. According to the report Social Security can pay full benefits through 2037 and 75% of benefits into perpetuity. A little tweaking can resolve whatever funding issues face Social Security. And again, I never said that there was "no reason to fix Social Security." Instead, I argued that there is no crisis and that the fix being promoted by you and your was worse that the problem to the extent there is one.

I hope you continue to say this while others spend their time ramping this up to epic "crisis" proportions. Can't let a good "crisis" go underutilized...

And you attempt to rebuild the "crisis" straw man. I never said it was a crisis, I said it needed fixing and working on it now certainly couldn't hurt.

Now. I expect you to complete turn around on this and start talking up the crisis as soon as the Administration picks up the banner, but as I said. I hope you continue stressing how much of a "crisis" it isn't.

[Bonestorm]

I hope you continue to say this while others spend their time ramping this up to epic "crisis" proportions. Can't let a good "crisis" go underutilized...

OK. So I guess you are now conceding that the Bush Administration utilized crisis rhetoric concerning Social Security in its misguided effort to create personal accounts. Thanks for that.

[Damocles]

OK. So I guess you are now conceding that the Bush Administration utilized crisis rhetoric concerning Social Security in its misguided effort to create personal accounts. Thanks for that.

Stupid straw man.

You don't need a "crisis" to understand that you can make something better. (Note I used 'exaggeration' in my first post, much like 'personal accounts' is a large exaggeration of the Bush plan. And I mean epically huge exaggeration.)

I just ask again that you continue to stress how much of a crisis this isn't when the banner is picked up by the Administration. Tell everybody how we should wait until it is before any movement can be made...

I suspect we would disagree about what should be done. But I also suspect that we will hear how it needs to be done NOWNOWNOW... before it is infected by that nasty Swine Flu.

[Bonestorm]

I hope you continue to say this while others spend their time ramping this up to epic "crisis" proportions. Can't let a good "crisis" go underutilized...

And you attempt to rebuild the "crisis" straw man. I never said it was a crisis, I said it needed fixing and working on it now certainly couldn't hurt.

Now. I expect you to complete turn around on this and start talking up the crisis as soon as the Administration picks up the banner, but as I said. I hope you continue stressing how much of a "crisis" it isn't.

There is no "crisis strawman." That was the line that the "reformers" were shouting from the rooftops back in 2005 and 2006, that Social Security was in a crisis and that personal accounts needed to be established to fix the crisis. I don't recall whether you personally espoused that view but it was all teh rage among the righties.

And I think it quite cheeky of you to accuse me of setting up strawmen when your opening post adopts the "crisis" rhetoric.

Cute.

[Damocles]

There is no "crisis strawman." That was the line that the "reformers" were shouting from the rooftops back in 2005 and 2006, that Social Security was in a crisis and that personal accounts needed to be established to fix the crisis. I don't recall whether you personally espoused that view but it was all teh rage among the righties.

And I think it quite cheeky of you to accuse me of setting up strawmen when your opening post adopts the "crisis" rhetoric.

Cute.

Yup. Basically I was predicting your "personal accounts" straw man rubbish and using the same rhetoric that I expected my opponents, and have seen my opponents, use.

Let's see how predictive I was. Was Bush trying to take away any benefits from anybody at all?

[Bonestorm]

Stupid straw man.

You don't need a "crisis" to understand that you can make something better. (Note I used 'exaggeration' in my first post, much like 'personal accounts' is a large exaggeration of the Bush plan. And I mean epically huge exaggeration.)

I just ask again that you continue to stress how much of a crisis this isn't when the banner is picked up by the Administration.

I'm not sure that "personal accounts" is a large exaggeration of the Bush "plan." Calling the "Bush plan" a plan at all, however, is goddamned whopper. Also, I used the term "personal account" as a compromise, adopting the preferred language of the Bush Administration just to avoid a confrontation on it. In reality, the Bushies wanted privatization.

I certainly will stress how much of a crisis this isn't when the Obama administration works to put Social Security on a path towards solvency. I only hope that you join me in arguing in favor of payroll taxes on income in excess of $250,000.

[Damocles]

I'm not sure that "personal accounts" is a large exaggeration of the Bush "plan." Calling the "Bush plan" a plan at all, however, is goddamned whopper. Also, I used the term "personal account" as a compromise, adopting the preferred language of the Bush Administration just to avoid a confrontation on it. In reality, the Bushies wanted privatization.

I certainly will stress how much of a crisis this isn't when the Obama administration works to put Social Security on a path towards solvency. I only hope that you join me in arguing in favor of payroll taxes on income in excess of $250,000.

And now we have a total fabrication. Bush's plan to allow a tiny portion to go into something that you could pass on to others was not "privatization" by any means.

As I predicted in my last post.... I knew you'd go there and started it off in exactly the right tone.

And no, I don't join you in that.

I believe that SS was meant to be insurance, and it should be treated as such. What other insurance program pays people who do not need the benefits?

[Bonestorm]

Yup. Basically I was predicting your "personal accounts" straw man rubbish and using the same rhetoric that I expected my opponents, and have seen my opponents, use.

Let's see how predictive I was. Was Bush trying to take away any benefits from anybody at all?

How is "personal accounts" strawman rubbish?


http://search.archives.gov/query-bus...ush2&col=bush2

[Bonestorm]

And now we have a total fabrication. Bush's plan to allow a tiny portion to go into something that you could pass on to others was not "privatization" by any means.

As I predicted in my last post.... I knew you'd go there and started it off in exactly the right tone.

And no, I don't join you in that.

Guy, "personal accounts" was the poll tested version of "privatization." Before the folks in the White House discovered that "privatization" polled like shit and that the public was a bit more receptive to "personal accounts" they used the privatization term themselves.

[Damocles]

How is "personal accounts" strawman rubbish?


http://search.archives.gov/query-bus...ush2&col=bush2

The straw man rubbish is where you extend that into saying it is "privatization"...

[Damocles]

Guy, "personal accounts" was the poll tested version of "privatization." Before the folks in the White House discovered that "privatization" polled like shit and that the public was a bit more receptive to "personal accounts" they used the privatization term themselves.

Again. A small portion allowed to go there is not "privatization" by any means. You know that is an epic exaggeration. It is direct fabrication.

That's like calling sales taxes "government run retail sales" and suggesting that only the government gets any profits because a tiny portion is taken in sales taxes.

You can "Guy" me all you want, but it is still a fabrication when you get done saying it.