You Need to Know this About Social Security and Medicare

By Duane Lester - August 22, 2009 - 14 Comments -

Most Americans believe that the Social Security trust fund contains a pot of money that is sitting somewhere earning interest to pay their benefits when they retire. On paper this is true; somewhere in a Treasury Department ledger there are $2.4 trillion worth of assets labeled “Social Security trust fund.”

The problem is that by law 100% of these “assets” are invested in Treasury securities. Therefore, the trust fund does not have any actual resources with which to pay Social Security benefits. It’s as if you wrote an IOU to yourself; no matter how large the IOU is it doesn’t increase your net worth.

That’s awesome! Nice work, Congress.

That’s not even the bad news. Check this out:

Social Security’s actuaries make such a calculation on page 64. It says that Social Security’s unfunded liability in perpetuity is $17.5 trillion (treating the trust fund as meaningless). The program would need that much money today in a real trust fund outside the government earning a true return to pay for all the benefits that have been promised over and above future Social Security taxes. In effect, the capital stock of the nation would have to be $17.5 trillion larger than it is right now. Alternatively, the payroll tax rate would have to rise by 4%.

To put it another way, Social Security’s unfunded liability equals 1.3% of the gross domestic product. So if we were to fund its deficit with general revenues, income taxes would have to rise by 1.3% of GDP immediately and forever. With the personal income tax raising about 10% of GDP in coming years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this means that every taxpayer would have to pay 13% more just to make sure that all Social Security benefits currently promised will be paid.

That’s just Social Security. One program.

Medicare is worse:

On page 69 we see that just part A of that program, which pays for hospital care, has an unfunded liability of $36.4 trillion in perpetuity. The payroll tax rate would have to rise by 6.5% immediately to cover that shortfall or 2.8% of GDP forever. Thus every taxpayer would face a 28% increase in their income taxes if general revenues were used to pay future Medicare part A benefits that have been promised over and above revenues from the Medicare tax.

But this is just the beginning of Medicare’s problems, because it also has two other programs: part B, which covers doctor’s visits, and part D, which pays for prescription drugs.

The unfunded portion of Medicare part B is already covered by general revenues under current law. The present value of that is $37 trillion or 2.8% of GDP in perpetuity according to the trustees report (p. 111). The unfunded portion of Medicare part D, which was rammed into law by George W. Bush and a Republican Congress in 2003, is also covered by general revenues under current law and has a present value of $15.5 trillion or 1.2% of GDP forever (p. 127).

What it boils down to is this:

To summarize, we see that taxpayers are on the hook for Social Security and Medicare by these amounts: Social Security, 1.3% of GDP; Medicare part A, 2.8% of GDP; Medicare part B, 2.8% of GDP; and Medicare part D, 1.2% of GDP. This adds up to 8.1% of GDP. Thus federal income taxes for every taxpayer would have to rise by roughly 81% to pay all of the benefits promised by these programs under current law over and above the payroll tax.

Since many taxpayers have just paid their income taxes for 2008 they may have their federal returns close at hand. They all should look up the total amount they paid and multiply that figure by 1.81 to find out what they should be paying right now to finance Social Security and Medicare.

Now, even you hard core lefties, ask yourself: can we afford the Democrat’s health care reform?

[11]

44Grim

Yeah, when was that changed, because originally, Social Security had it’s ‘own accounts’ and wasn’t just thrown into the federal budget.

1939 Amendments

Economic concerns
One reason for the proposed changes in 1939 was a growing concern over the impact that the reserves created by the 1935 act were having on the economy. The Recession of 1937 was blamed on the government, tied to the abrupt decrease in government spending and the $2 billion that had been collected in Social Security taxes.[27] Benefits became available in 1940 instead of 1942 and changes to the benefit formula increased the amount of benefits available to all recipients in the early years of Social Security.[28] These two policies combined to shrink the size of the reserves. The original Act had conceived of the program as paying benefits out of a large reserve. This Act shifted the conception of Social Security into the pay-as-you-go system.[29]

Creation of the Social Security Trust Fund
The amendments established a trust fund for any surplus funds. The managing trustee of this fund is the Secretary of the Treasury. The money could be invested in both non-marketable and marketable securities.[30]

Amendments of the 1960s

In 1961, retirement at age 62 was extended to men, and the tax rate was increased to 6.0%.

In 1962, the changing role of the female worker was acknowledged when benefits of covered women could be collected by dependent husbands, widowers, and children. These individuals, however, had to be able to prove their dependency.[41]

Medicare was added in 1965 by the Social Security Act of 1965, part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” program. Social Security was changed to withdraw funds from the independent “Trust Fund” and put it into the General Fund for additional congressional revenue.

In 1965, the age at which widows could begin collecting benefits was reduced to 60. Widowers were not included in this change. When divorce, rather than death, became the major cause of marriages ending, divorcées were added to the list of recipients. Divorcées over the age of 65 who had been married for at least 20 years, remained unmarried, and could demonstrate dependency on their ex-husbands received benefits.[42]

The government adopted a unified budget in the Johnson administration in 1968. This change resulted in a single measure of the fiscal status of the government, based on the sum of all government activity.[43] The surplus in Social Security trust funds offsets the total debt, making it appear much smaller than it otherwise would.

1977 Amendments
To combat the declining financial outlook, in 1977 Congress passed and Carter signed legislation fixing the double-indexing mistake. This amendment also altered the tax formulas to raise more money,[45] increasing withholding from 2% to 6.15%.[46] With these changes, President Carter remarked, “Now this legislation will guarantee that from 1980 to the year 2030, the Social Security funds will be sound.”[47] This turned out not to be the case. The financial picture declined almost immediately and by the early 1980s, the system was again in crisis.
44Grim

Yeah, when was that changed, because originally, Social Security had it’s ‘own accounts’ and wasn’t just thrown into the federal budget.

1939 Amendments

Economic concerns
One reason for the proposed changes in 1939 was a growing concern over the impact that the reserves created by the 1935 act were having on the economy. The Recession of 1937 was blamed on the government, tied to the abrupt decrease in government spending and the $2 billion that had been collected in Social Security taxes.[27] Benefits became available in 1940 instead of 1942 and changes to the benefit formula increased the amount of benefits available to all recipients in the early years of Social Security.[28] These two policies combined to shrink the size of the reserves. The original Act had conceived of the program as paying benefits out of a large reserve. This Act shifted the conception of Social Security into the pay-as-you-go system.[29]

Creation of the Social Security Trust Fund
The amendments established a trust fund for any surplus funds. The managing trustee of this fund is the Secretary of the Treasury. The money could be invested in both non-marketable and marketable securities.[30]

Amendments of the 1960s

In 1961, retirement at age 62 was extended to men, and the tax rate was increased to 6.0%.

In 1962, the changing role of the female worker was acknowledged when benefits of covered women could be collected by dependent husbands, widowers, and children. These individuals, however, had to be able to prove their dependency.[41]

Medicare was added in 1965 by the Social Security Act of 1965, part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” program. Social Security was changed to withdraw funds from the independent “Trust Fund” and put it into the General Fund for additional congressional revenue.

In 1965, the age at which widows could begin collecting benefits was reduced to 60. Widowers were not included in this change. When divorce, rather than death, became the major cause of marriages ending, divorcées were added to the list of recipients. Divorcées over the age of 65 who had been married for at least 20 years, remained unmarried, and could demonstrate dependency on their ex-husbands received benefits.[42]

The government adopted a unified budget in the Johnson administration in 1968. This change resulted in a single measure of the fiscal status of the government, based on the sum of all government activity.[43] The surplus in Social Security trust funds offsets the total debt, making it appear much smaller than it otherwise would.

1977 Amendments
To combat the declining financial outlook, in 1977 Congress passed and Carter signed legislation fixing the double-indexing mistake. This amendment also altered the tax formulas to raise more money,[45] increasing withholding from 2% to 6.15%.[46] With these changes, President Carter remarked, “Now this legislation will guarantee that from 1980 to the year 2030, the Social Security funds will be sound.”[47] This turned out not to be the case. The financial picture declined almost immediately and by the early 1980s, the system was again in crisis.
44Grim

The Social Security Act was drafted by President Roosevelt’s committee on economic security, under Edwin Witte, and passed by Congress as part of the New Deal. The act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children. By signing this act on August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt became the first president to advocate the protection of the elderly.[10]

They also didn’t allow women or African Americans to be in it… but it’s those darn conservatives on the ‘right wing’ that are the racists. Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.[11] Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers.[12] The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.[13] These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service.[14] Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population.[13] Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security.[15][16] At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”[16]

Implementation
Payroll taxes were first collected in 1937, also the year in which the first benefits were paid, namely the lump-sum death benefit paid to 53,236 beneficiaries.[citation needed]
The first reported Social Security payment was to Ernest Ackerman, who retired only one day after Social Security began. Five cents were withheld from his pay during that period, and he received a lump-sum payout of seventeen cents from Social Security.[22]
The first monthly payment was issued on January 31, 1940 to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her first check was for $22.54. After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92.[23]

As you can tell:
It was a program started by Democrats (though I think “Progressive” would be a better term for it), immediately screwed up by Progressives (making it ‘pay as you go’), screwed up seriously again in the 60′s by another Progressive (LBJ), and erroneously considered “fixed” by another progressive in the 70′s. Now it’s gotten so bad, due to the “fixings” in the 30′s, 60′s, and 70′s it’s a failure and unsustainable.
44Grim

The Social Security Act was drafted by President Roosevelt’s committee on economic security, under Edwin Witte, and passed by Congress as part of the New Deal. The act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children. By signing this act on August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt became the first president to advocate the protection of the elderly.[10]

They also didn’t allow women or African Americans to be in it… but it’s those darn conservatives on the ‘right wing’ that are the racists. Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.[11] Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers.[12] The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.[13] These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service.[14] Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population.[13] Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security.[15][16] At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”[16]

Implementation
Payroll taxes were first collected in 1937, also the year in which the first benefits were paid, namely the lump-sum death benefit paid to 53,236 beneficiaries.[citation needed]
The first reported Social Security payment was to Ernest Ackerman, who retired only one day after Social Security began. Five cents were withheld from his pay during that period, and he received a lump-sum payout of seventeen cents from Social Security.[22]
The first monthly payment was issued on January 31, 1940 to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her first check was for $22.54. After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92.[23]

As you can tell:
It was a program started by Democrats (though I think “Progressive” would be a better term for it), immediately screwed up by Progressives (making it ‘pay as you go’), screwed up seriously again in the 60′s by another Progressive (LBJ), and erroneously considered “fixed” by another progressive in the 70′s. Now it’s gotten so bad, due to the “fixings” in the 30′s, 60′s, and 70′s it’s a failure and unsustainable.
Martin

I am so thankful that Bush II took a look at social security and medicare during the first six years when he had the house and senate. Both have their major problems and he looked the other way!
Martin

I am so thankful that Bush II took a look at social security and medicare during the first six years when he had the house and senate. Both have their major problems and he looked the other way!
44Grim

I agree, he should have done something about it. But since he didn’t we’re still stuck with them. Do you really want to trust the same government that messed those up to cover the health care reform of today? including increased bureaucracy and the ‘public option’ or ‘co-op’ (whatever it is that they’re calling it these days), it will make social security and medicare look weak.

A person running on the platform of curtailing spending on Social Security/Medicare would not have a chance of winning. Too many people (probably yourself included) have paid in their whole lives and are looking forward to getting it until you die. I personally would like to cut the program entirely (in steps so that people who paid in will get their money back) and then close the doors on the program FOREVER. That is most certainly not going to be a popular view, there will be MILLIONS lobbying against it.

There are so many uneducated voters out there today, and voters who just want to get, get, get from the government that to break people from the government welfare mindset is almost impossible. They will vote on who will give them more, not on who honestly wants to balance the budget, pay off the debt, and put people back to work for good.
A person who wanted to do those things would: make people accountable for their actions and LET PEOPLE FAIL. they would bring back a sense of morality to the country because an immoral people cannot sustain democracy. they would make hard decisions that would not always be easy, and not always give people the most (it’d probably take away) to balance the budget and pay off debt. They would lower taxes and cut government spending to create new jobs and drill for resources within our borders so that we wouldn’t have to import (rather than loan Brazil $2 billion for oil exploration off their coast). They would listen to ALL people and not encourage division or physical means of fighting corruption. They would not buy into phony, money-making, power-grabbing ideas without doing thorough research on them first so that money is not wasted (like global warming for example).

Obama, in trying to explain that “private companies can compete with government businesses” used the USPS as an example. He said, “UPS and Fedex are doing alright, it’s the Post Office who’s always having problems”. That must have looked very good on the teleprompter, because when I heard it, it turned me off even more to government controlled ANYTHING because when the government takes control, the businesses usually end up doing a nose dive financially.

I say, let UPS and/ or Fedex take over delivering letters and scrap the USPS if they can’t get things figured out soon. Stamps have almost doubled in price in less than 10 years.
44Grim

I agree, he should have done something about it. But since he didn’t we’re still stuck with them. Do you really want to trust the same government that messed those up to cover the health care reform of today? including increased bureaucracy and the ‘public option’ or ‘co-op’ (whatever it is that they’re calling it these days), it will make social security and medicare look weak.

A person running on the platform of curtailing spending on Social Security/Medicare would not have a chance of winning. Too many people (probably yourself included) have paid in their whole lives and are looking forward to getting it until you die. I personally would like to cut the program entirely (in steps so that people who paid in will get their money back) and then close the doors on the program FOREVER. That is most certainly not going to be a popular view, there will be MILLIONS lobbying against it.

There are so many uneducated voters out there today, and voters who just want to get, get, get from the government that to break people from the government welfare mindset is almost impossible. They will vote on who will give them more, not on who honestly wants to balance the budget, pay off the debt, and put people back to work for good.
A person who wanted to do those things would: make people accountable for their actions and LET PEOPLE FAIL. they would bring back a sense of morality to the country because an immoral people cannot sustain democracy. they would make hard decisions that would not always be easy, and not always give people the most (it’d probably take away) to balance the budget and pay off debt. They would lower taxes and cut government spending to create new jobs and drill for resources within our borders so that we wouldn’t have to import (rather than loan Brazil $2 billion for oil exploration off their coast). They would listen to ALL people and not encourage division or physical means of fighting corruption. They would not buy into phony, money-making, power-grabbing ideas without doing thorough research on them first so that money is not wasted (like global warming for example).

Obama, in trying to explain that “private companies can compete with government businesses” used the USPS as an example. He said, “UPS and Fedex are doing alright, it’s the Post Office who’s always having problems”. That must have looked very good on the teleprompter, because when I heard it, it turned me off even more to government controlled ANYTHING because when the government takes control, the businesses usually end up doing a nose dive financially.

I say, let UPS and/ or Fedex take over delivering letters and scrap the USPS if they can’t get things figured out soon. Stamps have almost doubled in price in less than 10 years.
Martin

I don’t trust government to do anything. I don’t trust them to fight wars. I don’t trust them to admin the best healthcare. What I do trust them to do is to make changes in policy that will make my life and my childrens lives better. The money that I am paying to have things done is ridiculous. And we are a pretty healthy family. In my opinion, I want the public option because it weakens the insurance industry who have had the sweet life too long. I will never side on the non public option free market for my healthcare side because they worry about a lot of things before they worry about my health. Shareholders are number 1. All I know is this. I’m tired of paying $1,200 a month in insurance premiums and now 660 for a :15 office visit to a surgeion. Something has to change….

It has been a cycle of the GOP playing defense. That is what they are best at. Did they foresee any healthcare issues from 2000-2006? Did they put their neck on the line for social security and medicare reform? So what do they do? They wait til Clinton or Obama put a plan out there, like it or not, and bash it looking like all stars. Our country will never be ready for real reform. Just like you said about social security. We don’t want it messed with because we are afraid it will not be there.
Martin

I don’t trust government to do anything. I don’t trust them to fight wars. I don’t trust them to admin the best healthcare. What I do trust them to do is to make changes in policy that will make my life and my childrens lives better. The money that I am paying to have things done is ridiculous. And we are a pretty healthy family. In my opinion, I want the public option because it weakens the insurance industry who have had the sweet life too long. I will never side on the non public option free market for my healthcare side because they worry about a lot of things before they worry about my health. Shareholders are number 1. All I know is this. I’m tired of paying $1,200 a month in insurance premiums and now 660 for a :15 office visit to a surgeion. Something has to change….

It has been a cycle of the GOP playing defense. That is what they are best at. Did they foresee any healthcare issues from 2000-2006? Did they put their neck on the line for social security and medicare reform? So what do they do? They wait til Clinton or Obama put a plan out there, like it or not, and bash it looking like all stars. Our country will never be ready for real reform. Just like you said about social security. We don’t want it messed with because we are afraid it will not be there.
44Grim

I just lost 1/2 hour’s worth of work :( … and it was much better than this / turned out

I understand where you’re coming from, though. I’ve paid out the wazzoo for simple treatments that should have cost a fraction of the price, but do to BS in the healh care industry, I paid too much. I spent about an hour and 45 minutes in the ER last September, because I thought I’d broke my foot. It swelled up 2x it’s normal size (and that’s not an exaggeration) and my toe had gotten caught under my toe. I ended up paying about $600 for the hospital bill, $65~ for the doctor to look at the x-ray for 3 minutes, and $140~ for ‘the doctor’s billing’. I hadn’t seen any doctors (just the nurses’ staff at the ER) and hadn’t stopped at our family doctor (which sent the bill). I know that health care needs to be reformed.

If you’re sick of paying $1200 a month for health insurance, STOP PAYING IT. Find a better plan somewhere else. If your job doesn’t offer you a good plan, don’t accept it. if the union you’re in doesn’t offer you a plan that’s worth a crap, tell your ‘union reps’ who claim to care about you. Let me tell you a secret: neither party cares about us, just like most union reps don’t care about the people they ‘represent’. They want to stay in power, that’s their only goal for ‘career politicians’. Murtha calls his constituents ‘stupid and racist’ and they continue to vote for him. Sooner or later part of the blame is on US, the citizens that vote party line or keep voting for incompetent people.

What the government is offering is 30% fluff, 25% legal talk, and 45% bad. They want to CONTROL what health care procedures we can get more than they want to reform health care. They offer just enough to make us think that’s their goal (reforming health care). Protecting doctors from frivolous lawsuits, creating a health care network from coast to coast, opening up plans nationwide rather than based on state lines, cutting down on bureaucratic paperwork, letting some doctors charge lower fees (because some WANT to, but the government has told them NO) and possibly creating, through the doctors, not the government, a health ID card with important health information on it. Maybe it could be added on to the Driver’s LIcense, I don’t know. The “death panels” that people got made fun of so much for? Yeah, they stepped back from that and will probably take it out for the ‘final voting’, so they DID actually exist. The public option? it’s so unpopular that Obama’s administration is just re-naming it and repackaging it in hopes that it will garner support under the new name of ‘co-op’ (like global warming is now ‘climate change’). I don’t think the government has a right to take over parts of the economy, period. Let people accept the responsibility of their actions and fail. Nothing is “too big to fail”.

If you’re going to remain stuck on “the GOP this, the GOP that, the Democrats this, the Democrats this”, then I don’t believe anything I say will be able to change your mind. I’m wasting my breath, and you’re plugging your ears. Do you want change? then vote out the career politicians from your state. Don’t vote for people based on (R) or (D). As long as they can keep people divided, both parties don’t care, they just want to be in control. There ARE individuals out there who don’t care about party warfare, they care about doing the right thing. vote for those people instead of the ‘big names’.

I’m sure the GOP did see health care issues, but it was well before 2000 (try 1980ish). Did the Democrats see the housing crisis coming, as people like McCain told them it would happen? What’s your point? both parties have failed, and it’s time that we get past the partisan BS and act like we’re all Americans. use your brain more than your feelings when it comes to important decisions. stay educated on the issues (not just what the media ‘tells you’ on the nightly news). You seem to be all about this version of “reform” just because it has a government ‘public’ option where the government starts running a health insurance company? Not to be rude, but that’s asinine. Look what they do to things they run: AmTrac, USPS, Medicare, Social Security, Fannie and Freddy… All these programs are in the red, and have been for some time. The only reason they’re still open is because Uncle Sam prints his own money (and expects it to not depreciate). Do we really need to add to that list? Cash 4 Clunkers – failed at supporting failed companies (GM and Chrysler were near the bottom in car sales…). If you’re going to support this plan, at LEAST make them slow it down enough so that it’s not another bureaucratic failure right out of the gate. Rushing this thing through is the worst possible thing that could happen.

Why is it that people against the “Obamacare” or the House of Representatives bill are supposedly “against health care reform”? I agree wholeheartedly it should be reformed, I just think it should be done with as little government interference as possible.
44Grim

I just lost 1/2 hour’s worth of work :( … and it was much better than this \ / turned out

I understand where you’re coming from, though. I’ve paid out the wazzoo for simple treatments that should have cost a fraction of the price, but do to BS in the healh care industry, I paid too much. I spent about an hour and 45 minutes in the ER last September, because I thought I’d broke my foot. It swelled up 2x it’s normal size (and that’s not an exaggeration) and my toe had gotten caught under my toe. I ended up paying about $600 for the hospital bill, $65~ for the doctor to look at the x-ray for 3 minutes, and $140~ for ‘the doctor’s billing’. I hadn’t seen any doctors (just the nurses’ staff at the ER) and hadn’t stopped at our family doctor (which sent the bill). I know that health care needs to be reformed.

If you’re sick of paying $1200 a month for health insurance, STOP PAYING IT. Find a better plan somewhere else. If your job doesn’t offer you a good plan, don’t accept it. if the union you’re in doesn’t offer you a plan that’s worth a crap, tell your ‘union reps’ who claim to care about you. Let me tell you a secret: neither party cares about us, just like most union reps don’t care about the people they ‘represent’. They want to stay in power, that’s their only goal for ‘career politicians’. Murtha calls his constituents ‘stupid and racist’ and they continue to vote for him. Sooner or later part of the blame is on US, the citizens that vote party line or keep voting for incompetent people.

What the government is offering is 30% fluff, 25% legal talk, and 45% bad. They want to CONTROL what health care procedures we can get more than they want to reform health care. They offer just enough to make us think that’s their goal (reforming health care). Protecting doctors from frivolous lawsuits, creating a health care network from coast to coast, opening up plans nationwide rather than based on state lines, cutting down on bureaucratic paperwork, letting some doctors charge lower fees (because some WANT to, but the government has told them NO) and possibly creating, through the doctors, not the government, a health ID card with important health information on it. Maybe it could be added on to the Driver’s LIcense, I don’t know. The “death panels” that people got made fun of so much for? Yeah, they stepped back from that and will probably take it out for the ‘final voting’, so they DID actually exist. The public option? it’s so unpopular that Obama’s administration is just re-naming it and repackaging it in hopes that it will garner support under the new name of ‘co-op’ (like global warming is now ‘climate change’). I don’t think the government has a right to take over parts of the economy, period. Let people accept the responsibility of their actions and fail. Nothing is “too big to fail”.

If you’re going to remain stuck on “the GOP this, the GOP that, the Democrats this, the Democrats this”, then I don’t believe anything I say will be able to change your mind. I’m wasting my breath, and you’re plugging your ears. Do you want change? then vote out the career politicians from your state. Don’t vote for people based on (R) or (D). As long as they can keep people divided, both parties don’t care, they just want to be in control. There ARE individuals out there who don’t care about party warfare, they care about doing the right thing. vote for those people instead of the ‘big names’.

I’m sure the GOP did see health care issues, but it was well before 2000 (try 1980ish). Did the Democrats see the housing crisis coming, as people like McCain told them it would happen? What’s your point? both parties have failed, and it’s time that we get past the partisan BS and act like we’re all Americans. use your brain more than your feelings when it comes to important decisions. stay educated on the issues (not just what the media ‘tells you’ on the nightly news). You seem to be all about this version of “reform” just because it has a government ‘public’ option where the government starts running a health insurance company? Not to be rude, but that’s asinine. Look what they do to things they run: AmTrac, USPS, Medicare, Social Security, Fannie and Freddy… All these programs are in the red, and have been for some time. The only reason they’re still open is because Uncle Sam prints his own money (and expects it to not depreciate). Do we really need to add to that list? Cash 4 Clunkers – failed at supporting failed companies (GM and Chrysler were near the bottom in car sales…). If you’re going to support this plan, at LEAST make them slow it down enough so that it’s not another bureaucratic failure right out of the gate. Rushing this thing through is the worst possible thing that could happen.

Why is it that people against the “Obamacare” or the House of Representatives bill are supposedly “against health care reform”? I agree wholeheartedly it should be reformed, I just think it should be done with as little government interference as possible.
http://purecommonsense.net Mike

We need to have partially privatized accounts covering portions of Social Security and Medicare. It’s the only way out!
.-= Mike´s last blog ..Nature of the Kyoto Protocol =-.
http://purecommonsense.net Mike

We need to have partially privatized accounts covering portions of Social Security and Medicare. It’s the only way out!
.-= Mike´s last blog ..Nature of the Kyoto Protocol =-.