Social Security is not broke. The prediction that it will go "broke" in 17 years (or whatever the latest estimate is) means that at that time, the monies paid out each year will equal the monies paid in. However, given the existing funds in "the lockbox" (they are really US treasury IOU's, also still a top rated investment), plus annual collections, the system will still be able to pay benefits at 75% of the obligations - even without any additional funds in-putted.
If Social Security taxes were collected on 100% of earned income instead of only up to $110,000 (as is the case with Medicare tax) then that would cover 75% - 80% of the projected shortfall. A couple other small tweaks would balance the system indefinitely. More than half of all retirees over 65 rely exclusively on Social Security for income, and unlike private pensions that have been eliminated or reduced, SS is still there and remains reliable.
Medicare is truly unsustainable financially, and yet that is the most popular program in US government history. Public satisfaction with Medicare is quite high, and almost no one wants to give up their Medicare insurance and replace it with a privately purchased option, not that such is available for purchase; 80% of Medicare beneficiaries have at least one chronic disease, and 30% have four or more chronic conditions. Those people would never be able to purchase private insurance, due to pre-ex. Medicare overhead (administrative) costs are reported as 3%, as opposed to 20% or more on private health insurance plans. So although Medicare is not cheap, it is more affordable than the private options, and most importantly, it is available to almost all US residents age 65 and up, as well as those younger who are disabled.
So I would say those are two very popular and efficient government programs that have proven better than the private options currently available. And note that ACA will involve private insurance companies insuring the currently uninsured; the federal government will administer the enrollment and subsidy process.
If Social Security taxes were collected on 100% of earned income instead of only up to $110,000 (as is the case with Medicare tax) then that would cover 75% - 80% of the projected shortfall. A couple other small tweaks would balance the system indefinitely. More than half of all retirees over 65 rely exclusively on Social Security for income, and unlike private pensions that have been eliminated or reduced, SS is still there and remains reliable.
Medicare is truly unsustainable financially, and yet that is the most popular program in US government history. Public satisfaction with Medicare is quite high, and almost no one wants to give up their Medicare insurance and replace it with a privately purchased option, not that such is available for purchase; 80% of Medicare beneficiaries have at least one chronic disease, and 30% have four or more chronic conditions. Those people would never be able to purchase private insurance, due to pre-ex. Medicare overhead (administrative) costs are reported as 3%, as opposed to 20% or more on private health insurance plans. So although Medicare is not cheap, it is more affordable than the private options, and most importantly, it is available to almost all US residents age 65 and up, as well as those younger who are disabled.
So I would say those are two very popular and efficient government programs that have proven better than the private options currently available. And note that ACA will involve private insurance companies insuring the currently uninsured; the federal government will administer the enrollment and subsidy process.
Comment