Health Care

[Nitrox]

[mattp]

Check your source, Nitrox, and you may find this:

 

"The financial cost of the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan are not part of the defense budget; they are appropriations."

 

I could be wrong, but I think the current wars are not included in your chart.

[Nitrox]

Check your source, Nitrox, and you may find this:

 

"The financial cost of the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan are not part of the defense budget; they are appropriations."

 

I could be wrong, but I think the current wars are not included in your chart.

 

 

The prior pie chart showed total 2009 spending but this is the 2010 estimated budget without the new healthcare. The prior chart broke out the "Global War On Terror" which includes the two wars but this one combines DOD and the wars.

 

 

 

 

 

[bstach]

[video:youtube]

[prole]

It's fascinating how, in typical fashion, corporate America, finance capital, their politicians and intellectuals have shifted the narrative towards public debt and away from their own responsibility in the catastrophic meltdown and the policies (deregulation, tax cuts, casino economics) that helped lead to and have made the budgetary crises in advanced economies so acute. Just as breathtaking, but not surprising, is their own willingness to bite the hand that saved, and continues to save them from themselves, the State. But of course it's only a particular kind of State or policies that are under attack here: those that haven't gone far enough to peddle and pander to corporate interests and that still maintain some measure of responsibility to its citizenry, the hallmark of a legitimate governance. Neither Olyclimber's sarcastic but appropriate suggestion to "slap some duct tape on this jalopy" or the resident sociopath's to double-down on neoliberal capitalism (the two competing mainstream narratives) address anything that might look or smell like a viable way out of what is a global and systemic crisis. At this point, I'll certainly take duct tape over a continuing descent into barbarism.

[j_b]

Attack Wall Street, Not Social Security

 

by Dean Baker

 

Suppose our top generals described the growing threat from a hostile Middle East power. The country has tens of billions of oil dollars, a growing army, chemical and biological weapons, and is in the process of developing nuclear weapons. After carefully describing the risks posed by this country, our generals suggested an immediate attack on Canada. They explain that combating this Middle East country would be difficult, but defeating Canada is easy.

 

This is essentially the story of the latest attack on social security. Everyone who looks at the projections agrees; the scary budget stories being hyped in the media and by the Wall Street crew are driven almost entirely by projections of exploding health care costs. But instead of proposing ways to fix the health care system, these deficit hawks want to attack social security. They tell us that fixing health care is hard. By contrast they think that cutting money from social security will be relatively easy.

 

The facts on this are straightforward and known by everyone involved in the budget debate. The US health care system is broken. We pay more than twice as much per person as the average for other wealthy countries.

 

And it is projected to get worse. In three or four decades we are projected to pay three or four times as much per person for health care as people in countries like Germany and Canada. Since more than half of our health care is paid through public sector programs like Medicare and Medicaid, this explosion in health care costs will bankrupt the government if it actually occurs. Of course it will also devastate the private sector.

 

On the other hand, it is easy to show that if we contain health care costs then our budget problems are relatively minor. In fact, the current projections of enormous budget deficits two or three decades out would flip over to projections of enormous budget surpluses if our health care costs were comparable to those of any other wealthy country.

 

Logic would dictate that our top priority should be getting our health care costs under control. But fixing health care is difficult because, as we saw in the health care debate, this means confronting the health insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the medical supply industry, highly paid medical specialists and other powerful lobbies.

 

[..]

 

Of course attacking social security makes as much sense as our generals' plan to attack Canada. The Congressional Budget Office's projections show that the program can pay full benefits until the year 2044 with no changes whatsoever. Even after that date the program would always pay a higher benefit than what current retirees receive, even though somewhat less than the full scheduled benefits.

 

The long-term problem is not that anything improper has been done with the program; the reason that social security is projected to eventually face a shortfall is that future generations are projected to live longer than we do. This raises costs since our children and grandchildren are projected to enjoy longer retirements than we do. In short, there is no story of generational inequity here, contrary to what the Wall Street deficit hawks say.

 

If our deficit hawk generals are too scared to take on the health care industry then we also have to also make them too scared to take on social security. If we need to reduce the deficit the best place to start is a financial speculation tax. A modest set of financial transactions taxes, like the 0.5% tax on stock trades in the United Kingdom, can easily raise $150bn a year. This would go a long way toward addressing future budget shortfalls and it would raise money from people who can afford it: the Wall Street crew whose financial shenanigans led to the meltdown.

 

Federal Reserve board chairman Ben Bernanke recently suggested cutting social security because: "that's where the money is". That's not true, the real money is on Wall Street. Let's go get it.

 

more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/attack-wall-street-not-so_b_535018.html

 

[j_b]

are you really claiming that politicians didn't use the SS trust fund to pay for general fund expenditure?

 

No. You?

 

What is the trust fund composed of, and where will the assets required to fund the redemptions of the said assets come from when the annual cost of paying for SS benefits begins to exceed the value of the SS taxes collected in a given year.

 

The funds will come from the SS trust fund that has accumulated several trillion dollars. Nobody claimed that funds would come from the general fund beside debt fear mongerers like you (or at least those that use debt fear mongering to try privatizing SS)

[j_b]

what were the debt fear mongerers doing when Bush was starting wars we couldn't pay for? cheering?

[j_b]

the server is behaving badly this a.m.

Edited April 13, 2010 by j_b

[j_b]

Zing, off in a new direction he goes.

 

you shouldn't confuse a refusal to accept your framing of the discussion with going off in a new direction. Despite JayB's repeated claims nobody said the general fund would be used to pay off SS claims.

[j_b]

Attack Wall Street, Not Social Security

 

by Dean Baker

 

[..]

The long-term problem is not that anything improper has been done with the program; the reason that social security is projected to eventually face a shortfall is that future generations are projected to live longer than we do. This raises costs since our children and grandchildren are projected to enjoy longer retirements than we do. In short, there is no story of generational inequity here, contrary to what the Wall Street deficit hawks say.

 

in other words SS isn't a ponzi scheme despite the best attempts by debt fearmongerers to drive a wedge between the young and the old.

 

how come libertarians are always in the sack with Wall Street?

[JayB]

are you really claiming that politicians didn't use the SS trust fund to pay for general fund expenditure?

 

No. You?

 

What is the trust fund composed of, and where will the assets required to fund the redemptions of the said assets come from when the annual cost of paying for SS benefits begins to exceed the value of the SS taxes collected in a given year.

 

The funds will come from the SS trust fund that has accumulated several trillion dollars. Nobody claimed that funds would come from the general fund beside debt fear mongerers like you (or at least those that use debt fear mongering to try privatizing SS)

 

Dude - there's no repository of assets in storage somewhere. The SS trust fund is an accounting ledger that records the value of the money that the government has spent on other stuff for the past 50 years or more.

 

When SS expenditures exceed the value of SS receipts, the SS administration will "redeem" the special-purpose Treasury bonds that were issued when the government borrowed the money from the "trust fund."

 

The government will then have to cough up the money to cover the value of the said special purpose bonds. That'll have to come from:

 

-Tax revenues.

-Borrowed money.

-Printing more money.

 

The first two constitute "The General Fund." The only option outside of diverting money away from that involves opening the printing presses.

 

Barring any massive reduction in the per-capita value of Social Security and Medicare, the reality will be higher taxes, more debt, and a further erosion of the value of existing savings, earnings, etc via inflation.

 

 

[JayB]

It's fascinating how, in typical fashion, corporate America, finance capital, their politicians and intellectuals have shifted the narrative towards public debt and away from their own responsibility in the catastrophic meltdown and the policies (deregulation, tax cuts, casino economics) that helped lead to and have made the budgetary crises in advanced economies so acute. Just as breathtaking, but not surprising, is their own willingness to bite the hand that saved, and continues to save them from themselves, the State. But of course it's only a particular kind of State or policies that are under attack here: those that haven't gone far enough to peddle and pander to corporate interests and that still maintain some measure of responsibility to its citizenry, the hallmark of a legitimate governance. Neither Olyclimber's sarcastic but appropriate suggestion to "slap some duct tape on this jalopy" or the resident sociopath's to double-down on neoliberal capitalism (the two competing mainstream narratives) address anything that might look or smell like a viable way out of what is a global and systemic crisis. At this point, I'll certainly take duct tape over a continuing descent into barbarism.

 

Feel free to make a voluntary contribution to the underfunded public pension fund of your choosing...

[prole]

Yes, please try to keep your pathological prescriptions neutral, value-free, and clinical.

[Fairweather]

It's fascinating how, in typical fashion, corporate America, finance capital, their politicians and intellectuals have shifted the narrative towards public debt and away from their own responsibility in the catastrophic meltdown and the policies (deregulation, tax cuts, casino economics) that helped lead to and have made the budgetary crises in advanced economies so acute. Just as breathtaking, but not surprising, is their own willingness to bite the hand that saved, and continues to save them from themselves, the State. But of course it's only a particular kind of State or policies that are under attack here: those that haven't gone far enough to peddle and pander to corporate interests and that still maintain some measure of responsibility to its citizenry, the hallmark of a legitimate governance. Neither Olyclimber's sarcastic but appropriate suggestion to "slap some duct tape on this jalopy" or the resident sociopath's to double-down on neoliberal capitalism (the two competing mainstream narratives) address anything that might look or smell like a viable way out of what is a global and systemic crisis. At this point, I'll certainly take duct tape over a continuing descent into barbarism.

 

Feel free to make a voluntary contribution to the underfunded public pension fund of your choosing...

 

Prole, j_b & Co. are only interested in securing the hard work of others to create their utopia.

[prole]

You two are perfect for each other: the morally bankrupt fundamentalist preacher and the congregation he secretly holds in contempt for stupidly believing the lies he sells them.

[JayB]

You two are perfect for each other: the morally bankrupt fundamentalist preacher and the congregation he secretly holds in contempt for stupidly believing the lies he sells them.

 

Yes - keep looking out for the little guy.

 

"One state retiree, 49 years old, paid, over the course of his entire career, a total of $124,000 towards his retirement pension and health benefits. What will we pay him? $3.3 million in pension payments over his life, and nearly $500,000 for health care benefits—a total of $3.8 million on a $120,000 investment."

 

 

 

 

[Nitrox]

Zing, off in a new direction he goes.

 

you shouldn't confuse a refusal to accept your framing of the discussion with going off in a new direction. Despite JayB's repeated claims nobody said the general fund would be used to pay off SS claims.

 

That's laughable. You struggle to differentiate current fiscal spending with national debt but think I'm fooled by a change in topic? You don't even understand how SS is currently being administered.

 

 

 

 

 

[j_b]

what's laughable is how 30+ years of large tax cuts to the wealthy and financial deregulation (both policies advocated by libertarians and their closet toadies in Washington) have bankrupted America as well as the world economy, yet the looters managed to turn around and claim that Social Security (an immensely successful program by any measure) is responsible for the crisis they engineered.

 

You guys have no credibility whatsoever, no matter how you try to spin your dismal record.

[JayB]

what's laughable is how 30+ years of large tax cuts to the wealthy and financial deregulation (both policies advocated by libertarians and their closet toadies in Washington) have bankrupted America as well as the world economy, yet the looters managed to turn around and claim that Social Security (an immensely successful program by any measure) is responsible for the crisis they engineered.

 

You guys have no credibility whatsoever, no matter how you try to spin your dismal record.

 

"Look - over there..."

 

 

Yes. Tell me about credibility. Ha.

[prole]

"Look - over there..."

 

 

Yes. Tell me about credibility. Ha.

 

If you're not ready to admit you have a problem, you're not ready to get well. What does rock-bottom look like for the neoliberal fundamentalist, I wonder?

[JayB]

"Look - over there..."

 

 

Yes. Tell me about credibility. Ha.

 

If you're not ready to admit you have a problem, you're not ready to get well. What does rock-bottom look like for the neoliberal fundamentalist, I wonder?

 

North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Eritrea, Burma, Venezeula, Libya, DRC, Turkmenistan, Solomon Islands, Republic of Congo, Iran.

 

Numbers 179-168 out of 179 in this year's Index of Economic Freedom.

 

 

 

[j_b]

"Look - over there..."

 

 

Yes. Tell me about credibility. Ha.

 

that's rich coming from the guy who claims that SS is responsible for the debt crisis, when in fact it is solvent for at least another 30 years. Intellectual honesty seems to be an entirely foreign concept for JayB.

[j_b]

You two are perfect for each other: the morally bankrupt fundamentalist preacher and the congregation he secretly holds in contempt for stupidly believing the lies he sells them.

 

Yes - keep looking out for the little guy.

 

"One state retiree, 49 years old, paid, over the course of his entire career, a total of $124,000 towards his retirement pension and health benefits. What will we pay him? $3.3 million in pension payments over his life, and nearly $500,000 for health care benefits—a total of $3.8 million on a $120,000 investment."

 

 

 

 

a 49 yo retired state employee? More cherry picking from the market zealot.

[j_b]

"Look - over there..."

 

 

Yes. Tell me about credibility. Ha.

 

If you're not ready to admit you have a problem, you're not ready to get well. What does rock-bottom look like for the neoliberal fundamentalist, I wonder?

 

Somalia is a deregulated/small government paradise to market fundamentalists like JayB so there is likely a way to go before reaching rock-bottom as far as he is concerned