Reply With Quote
The ers in D.C. could care less about this. They're not hurting like most Americans are right now.
Actually, I'm pretty sure those numbers are obsolete with this new 4% SS rate that started in January.
The ers in D.C. could care less about this. They're not hurting like most Americans are right now.
It is when you are already routinely running trillion dollar annual deficits.
Just wait till inflation kicks in and we see double digit interest on treasury debt.
Whatever happens we will most likely have zero say about it and happily get screwed over...
This.
Interest income will more than make up any projected deficit brought about by contributions through 2024, at which time, without a increase in the SS tax rate, we could see SS cashing in assets to pay benefits...at which point benefits can still be payed, at least at a 75% of scheduled benefits until 2084...
[url=http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html]SS.gov[url]Social Security expenditures are expected to exceed tax receipts this year for the first time since 1983. The projected deficit of $41 billion this year (excluding interest income) is attributable to the recession and to an expected $25 billion downward adjustment to 2010 income that corrects for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink substantially for 2011 and to return to small surpluses for years 2012-2014 due to the improving economy. After 2014 deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the baby boom generation’s retirement causes the number of beneficiaries to grow substantially more rapidly than the number of covered workers. The annual deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets in amounts less than interest earnings through 2024, and then by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084. The projected exhaustion date for the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds is unchanged from last year’s report.
it's very likely that the SS tax rate will be increased after 2012 and that the fund will remain solvent indefinitely...
@ "the fund". There IS no FUND. The social security "lock box" has been raided and cleaned out and the money pissed off on other stuff. We can't balance the budget and are running trillion plus dollar deficits already. Where are those trillions gonna come from to pay social security back?
Some people just don't understand those simple facts.
The current deficit is a revenue problem completely the result of VRWC policies to reduce govt revenue ("starve the beast" with tax cuts, tax evasion/avoidance, bull wars, financial deregulation, globalization, etc) and/or shovel Human-American taxes and to Corporate-Americans.
The revenue problem can be fixed by reversing those policies.
But VRWC head-lock (mental and financial locks) on govt means those policies will never be reversed, putting USA into permanent decline, and UCA into permanent ascendance and dominance. aka, USA is ed and un able.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 05-13-2011 at 01:18 PM.
if there is no fund, then no amount of private investments, or 401ks or any type of annuity is going to help you because our money would be worthless....the govt would rather monetize the debt than let it default...not that either one of those choices have to made anytime soon as I have already proven...
No, my 401k will help. It may not be worth as much as I have planned, but it's still better than not planning for my own retirement.
if there is no fund, then no amount of private investments, or 401ks or any type of annuity is going to help you because our money would be worthless....the govt would rather monetize the debt than let it default...not that either one of those choices have to made anytime soon as I have already proven...
You miss what was said. The fund balance is zero. It has been spent. It is nothing but government IOU's. Now in this time of very high deficits and the need to repay some of it as more retire, it is more difficult to fix our economy.
"The fund balance is zero. It has been spent."
Was there ever meant to a stagnant balance, just sitting there doing nothing? Lending the money to US government is much safer, even the bond markets say so, than poor ers whose 401's lost 30% in the Wall St casino, forcing them to keep working rather than retire.
Hitler's Baby Boomers are a demographic problem, compounded by the BB's kids having fewer kids.
Again, the most immediate problem is not SS cash flow, but the CORPORATE/DOCTOR greed pushing up medical prices 7% per year, so Medicare/Medicaid for 65+ people is going up, combined with the pathogenic lifestyles (corporate for food and no exercise).
The SS panic is totally fabricated, a transparent attempt to kill SS and divert those retirement funds into the Wall St casino, where they will be consumed by results-independent fees.
Your opinion and strawman.
what strawman?
The Repugs, as dubya's failed attempt showed, want to privatize SS. Do you deny that? What is the Repug "solution" for SS?
We see the Repug solution of CA budget crisis is to cut funds to old, disabled, sick, pretty much a mirror of what Repugs propose everywhere, while continuing $Ts in tax expenditures to the wealthy and corps.
Idiot.
They want to add a privatization option for individuals to opt out. Not make it mandatory for everyone.
Why do you liberals insist on these authoritarian policies of mandatory insurances?
RG, consider me a rank novice on this but wasn't China being accused of artificially devaluing their currency? (terminology is probably off but...)
What benefits are derived from that exactly? I've read something about keeping exports higher and imports cheaper? Is that the trade imbalance you're talking about? Or is it a "physical" thing as in, we're getting 1 and they're taking 2 of whatever?
Anyone who cares to comment, I'd appreciate some education on the topic.
There's many 'benefits', if you want to call it that, but in a nuts the idea is that keeping the value of the currency low means that the purchasing power is kept low, so the compe ive edge of low salaries and extended work hours is kept in place. If they would let their currency float freely, then the current salary would be able to buy much more, which normally translates in people not needing to work as much to keep the same standard of living. In the world of cheap labor, that's a loss in compe iveness.RG, consider me a rank novice on this but wasn't China being accused of artificially devaluing their currency? (terminology is probably off but...)
What benefits are derived from that exactly? I've read something about keeping exports higher and imports cheaper? Is that the trade imbalance you're talking about? Or is it a "physical" thing as in, we're getting 1 and they're taking 2 of whatever?
Anyone who cares to comment, I'd appreciate some education on the topic.
Doctors are pushing up prices?
"Doctors are pushing up prices'
sure they are. they get a slice of every test, drug, procedure they prescribe, aka fee-for-service, no matter what the outcome. aka "moral hazard". The more they prescribe, the more they make, and if they own the labs, even better, totally independent of the what the patient needs, and they hide behind "defensive medicine" scam.
Ever ask a doctor what something costs? They mostly don't know and don't care. Ever ask his staff what something costs? They don't know, they don't care. The insurance company sets the prices, all horribly complex, opaque, just like UCA likes their rip-offs.
A friend of mine had carotid and cardiac sonograms (all clear) and cardiac calcium CT scan (all clear). There was one little spec of plaque in one tiny section of one carotid. Absolutely no risk, but cardiologist prescribed the smallest, 5mg, Crestor statin, $1000 for 3 months.
Docs are now prescribing statins to 100% healthy people as pre-disease protection. ing insane.
Um, no we don't. As a matter of fact, in most cases now the more you prescribe, the more you lose. Compensation for labs and routine testing doesn't cover the cost usually. These articles reveal the reality of the situation:
http://rangelmd.com/2010/05/the-futu...-compensation/
http://www.time.com/time/business/ar...012443,00.html
Come again once you've been sued because Lab test X wasn't ordered despite it having no bearing on the clinical treatment course. I think lawyers should be looked at more closely.
Our staff asks those questions everyday and unfortunately it's a limiting factor for many patient treatments. Ultimately it's the patients choice whether or not to go ahead with the regimen.
As opposed to the cost of bypass surgery or cardiac cath, convalescence, and follow-up care on down the road. Any plaque can and usually will progress to something clinically significant. Just because it's benign today doesn't mean we can ignore it. Crestor is expensive, but there are cheaper alternatives out there. All one needs to do is ask.
Again, as opposed to allowing those people who are naturally predisposed to CAD and hyperlipidemia to go unmanaged which invariably requires much more expensive care later. Preventive medicine is much cheaper overall in the long run.
I've tried to explain the litigation aspect increasing costs, but I get shouted down. Maybe you can convince these people.
"explain the litigation aspect increasing costs, but I get shouted down"
no, your lie gets you -slapped with the facts that show tort reform would have almost no effect on medical costs, as we see in TX.
I agreed that particular tort reform was a joke, but you want to imply that it means all others solutions will fail.
Is your forgetful nature of remarks in past threads by accident or design?
B, I'm not saying that physicians are without fault, theres plenty of buddy-buddy going on. What I am saying is that anytime there's a substantial threat of litigation MD's will play CYA. Costs be dammed.
I'd like to see tort reform play a bigger part in things. I'm not versed on the specifics except that the attempt in Texas was a half-hearted one that yielded no substantial benefits.
Treatments damage/kill patients, docs and staff make mistakes that damage/kill patients. One study a few years ago put the number of annual deaths from avoidable medical errors at about 90K.
Of all medical suits, how many are frivolous?
The "reform" proposed always seems to slam the court house door and cheat the plaintiffs, rather than change treatments and procedures to be less error prone. I read one report where an airline pilot's type of pre-flight checklist in the operating room gave huge reduction in errors, and costs ing nothing. win-win-win.
Pretty obvious examples no? If a treatment kills or disables a patient, of course that patient is en led to having his/her expenses taken care of. I'm speaking about bull like being awarded 500k because that surgical scar didn't turn out to look quite like you had hoped. There's a long list which I could share with you, but you get the idea. That's gotta go.
And sure, checklists are a matter of common sense. Unfortunately, you have some y docs who don't want to be bothered with such things. They'll rubber stamp a bunch of them at once and have someone else fill em out.
Seems to me that you've asked the million dollar question BD. Why don't you do some digging and give us an answer? That's one point which needs clarification.
The other point is that the mere threat of litigation will increase costs. That's just a fact that won't go away..........unless the ability to litigate goes away.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
