Posts
See link here.
Entitlement programs are currently creating many problems for our Federal government, reform needs to happen asap. This article addresses the Republicans budget for next year and although it is a very risky and controversial move it's the first real step towards change (which I believe is a good thing). I found this article interesting in that it didn't address social security, which I believe also needs restructuring because it's also a huge contributor to our federal deficit and debt. What are your thoughts on social security reform? The article also talked about the timing of this budget proposal, do you think GOP leaders should have delayed the release of this budget until this years spending difference are resolved? Any other thoughts or comments?
I am in shock by the comment that while Social Security is a factor in the nation's fiscal crisis, it doesn't contribute as much to the soaring debt as Medicare." Social Security is not only going to cause a financial burden for the future of the US but also a social problem as the elderly in the United States run out of Social Security payments. The burden will fall onto their children and family members. Who will fund the retirement of the elderly? How long will they have to delay retirement in order to receive an income? What effect will this have on their health? If children are financially responsible for their parents, what effect will that have on the children's financial future?
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that this proposal ignores a pretty significant issue. What's the point of finding a short term solution if we can brainstorm a better, more sustainable plan instead?
Hmm, there's no doubt that SS is a major problem. Nevertheless, I think it is a separate issue - I question why those two paragraphs were even included in the article.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the Ryan-Rivilin plan, I am excited to see this change in approach. I think the cuts are exaggerated, but it is a step in the right direction. If possible, I always like to see most of the work being done by the private sector. These vouchers would allow that.
I believe we need a serious look into getting rid of social security and pushing more personal savings. There are plenty of investment opportunities out there for individuals and couples... 401Ks and such. People get comfortable living in their ways and can't fathom that their money isn't going to stay forever when you're not working. It's remarkable then when they can't sustain themselves anymore and think that the gov't needs to/should take care of them.
ReplyDeleteCan we talk about the healthcare industry too? I think those costs need to go way down. It costs millions of dollars of insurance and gov't money to pay for procedures and xrays and such just because its a hugely competitive business. We need to cut healthcare costs, I feel like its getting a little ridiculous.
I absolutely disagree with you michelle. Social security is a public savings system designed to supplement private savings. The program was always spend as you go compared to having people getting the money the put in back because it was always playing catch up.
ReplyDeleteThe age for social security collection must be raised, however. This would cut both medicare and social security costs.
I think maybe you missed Michelle's point. She is recommending that we move away from the public savings system that we have now. Instead, pushing a private system.
ReplyDeleteThere has been a lot of talk about this for the last 5 years. I see a lot of upside to a mandatory private investment account.
No question, the ages for Social Security and Medicare need to be raised...the baby boomers are going to bankrupt us!
I like Dane's suggestion of a privatized system of health care that allows insurance companies to compete against each other and price difference between insurance and drug companies fosters strong incentive to keep low administrative costs. Switzerland had developed a way to cope with the issues that currently face the United States. The Swiss mandated that insurance companies run as non-profit, which meant that they were not allowed to make a profit on basic care, although they could profit from supplemental policies. A lack of profit has not meant a lack of competition.
ReplyDeleteIt's very competitive because each company wants to keep its old customers and get new clients. So there's extreme competition for service and price. In Switzerland, benefits are comprehensive in scope for acute care services (doctors, hospitals, prescription drugs, and lab/diagnostic tests). Insurance systems bring the working-age and elderly populations into a single pool. Also, the majority of the population buys supplemental policies, often purchased from the insurer providing basic coverage. Insurers providing supplemental coverage are subject little to no risk-rating restrictions. Either way, I think we are going to be forced to wait it out until Healthcare reform is fully operational in 2014.