Obama widened the hairline crack today by publicly endorsing Medicare means testing that would deny benefits to wealthier Americans.
If adopted, the change would shift the universal Medicare program from a social insurance program for everyone to a welfare program for poor Americans.
Democrats have resisted such a shift for decades out of fear that such would undermine widespread middle class support for government health care programs.
Tsk, tsk. Read more here.
So if you are careful, invest your retirement funds wisely, and plan for your retirement, you get the short end of the stick.
ReplyDeleteMost certainly bad things happen to good people. But how many people are shy on retirement funds because having a hot car and buying the next larger HDTV as soon as it comes out are more important than planning for the future? Let's go and reward reckless behavior some more.
Good, it's a start in the right direction. Do the same with Social Security. With the cut in aid to Pakistan, he's actually suggesting things I can get on board with.
ReplyDeleteFlorrie, are you saying you are on board with Obama on this?
ReplyDeleteMatt, I'll not speak for florrie, but in principle I'm OK with means testing Medicare.
ReplyDeleteThe perverse disincentive problem you bring up is certainly real.
However, I believe the program as constituted is unaffordable, and so there are some ugly choices: cut it back across the board or means test it. The Ryan plan is probably a good one but from what I've heard it simply isn't popular and there aren't enough votes to pass it, even among the Republicans.
To what extent do you withhold from people who are poor through no fault of their own in order to avoid creating disincentives for the lazy and profligate?
I'm reluctant to come down hard on either side of that question.
The incentive problem appears in various other manifestations in the tax code. I think it's just one of those genuinely hard tradeoffs.
I would like to see Social Security means tested as well - phased in over time, so those who have paid in their whole life are affected less; the one's paying in now will understand that the deal has changed: it's not a pension, but insurance.
Of course this may undermine popular support for the programs themselves. Pity!
Further, those state and municipal employees and retirees who have gold plated pensions and benefits may find themselves on the wrong side of the cuttoff. LOL.
There's lots of ways to do this wrong and no clear way to do it right, but like I said, in principle means testing is not something I'd reject out of hand.
I keep messing up my comments, I messed up lewy's, thank GAWD I was able to save his.
ReplyDeleteMatt, I'm for means testing in a fair way, counting all income, all assets, etc., and having it be a real "safety net" (I hate catch phrases but...) for those who do need help.
I know several getting Ssec & Medicare - including a relative - who were distressed that they weren't going to get the usual CoL increases - let alone take a cut! And they are VERY comfortable do not need the checks at all. Now, the people I'm speaking of did pay in to these accounts, or their spouses did, and in a time of surplus I'm be all for sending them gov't checks. But we are in such dire straights that I think wealthy individuals should not receive $$$ we don't have just because it is their "due". Ditto gold-plated pensions for govt. workers. And I'm close to Ssec and Medicare age and am more than willing to take cuts in what I paid in over the years. We need to attack waste and fraud in gov't spending immediately as well.
I may be all wrong though. Not for the first time. :-) Now I'll stop before I muck up any more comments.
While in principal I agree with the concept of a safety net, how many people need that net because of they squandered their money all along the way? Are we going to create another government program that rewards a lack of responsibility?
ReplyDeleteTaking care of single mothers with children sounds like a good idea. However, that led to a breakdown of the two-parent family and a population explosion in poor areas -- all because people were reward for f**king like rabbits with no commitment on the part of the people involved. How many times do you hear of women with several children, and most -- if not all -- are by different fathers?
And haven't the people who have been able to set themselves up for retirement paid into the system? Can you imagine what would happen if a bank tried to charge higher interest from the people who always pay their bills -- all because they can afford to pay more? The people running that bank would be in jail in no time.
Again, I like the basic idea. The mechanics need to be well thought out ahead of time.
I hear you all loud and clear, but it's one more step towards a socialist/communistic government. Not just no, but hell no.
ReplyDeleteThe rich pay nearly the entire cost of "floating the boat" that is the United States. The gap between economic levels widens every decade. Asking the wealthy to shoulder even more of society's burden only gives them more power and sway over the rest of us.
Social security was originally designed to protect widows and orphans, not be a gravy train. However, as currently constructed, anyone who has paid into the system has every right to demand compensation or services. Why not offer a one-time payout to people who can establish that they can afford their own medical care? Or apply the social security/medicare premium to 100% of earnings (rather than the current cutoff of $106,800)? Why not include the sacred cow earnings of capital gain(gasp!)? That would raise a boatload of bucks.
Why not drastically trim costs by aggressively pursuing fraud cases, and confiscate the property of those found guilty? Why not offer citizens a reward when they report fraud? That would incentivize our seniors to line-item check their statements for an extra hundred bucks or five hundred bucks.
Why not get away from all the gov't "touchy feely" bullshit and concentrate our resources on wellness, rather than treating the consequences of obesity or smoking or a sedentary lifestyle? Why not open 24 hour clinics next to emergency rooms to drive costs down?
Well, I could go on and on, but I'm sure you all get my drift. Kicking productive, successful people off the rolls after they've paid their fair share is the WRONG road to travel, IMHO. We need better solutions if we're not to become one gigantic plantation with 99% of Americans bent over a cotton sack.
A wise man once said "We cannot sacrifice what is right for what is expedient."
ReplyDeleteMatt's words resonate with me as I ponder the whole social security/medicare debacle.
Our "leaders" (yeah, don't laugh) have very tough decisions to make in the coming years. I have very little faith they will look long enough at the big picture to make logical and sound policy. I expect them to "kick the can down the road" in an attempt to save their own political careers. And so it goes...
The government has subsidized bad behavior for decades, and of course we've simply gotten more bad behavior. Means-testing for SS & Medicare seems reasonable on the face, but doing it now, after the pay-in fact, as it were, just rewards poor planning.
ReplyDeleteIn far too many cases our social 'safety net' has become a featherbed, and therefore far too many people have been content to stay tucked in, as witness the nearly half who are not anly longer paying taxes, many of whom do work, but are getting 'Earned Income Tax Credit' in far higher amounts than any tax they would have paid.
SS has been a Ponzi scheme from Day One, and has finally reached the point where outgo is going to greatly exceed income (yay, just in time for me to retire) but too many people have believed for too many years that they will be able to live on it to jerk that rug out now.
So, another argument for only paying to those who've not made other arrangements for themselves?
In fact, the only reason I can see for not doing means-testing on the 3 major entitlement programs is immorality, and when has that ever stopped government?
Sorry, I realize this comment has been a ramble.