Share what you know with millions of people
Focus is the best place to turn what you know into remarkable content
0
Are you in favor of clawing back entitlements in order to reduce the deficit?
Are you in favor of reducing entitlements such as social security and medicare if it means reducing the deficit? Why/why not?
Events
- Dos and Don'ts of Small Business Marketing May 29 @ 11 am PT
- Lead Nurturing 202: The Next Generation May 31 @ 11 am PT
- The Tricks to Paid Media June 6 @ 11 am PT
- Display Advertising for Brand Awareness June 20 @ 11 am PT
Related Activity
4 Answers
The word clawback is a poor word for a difficult situation our country faces. However with that said, I do believe our current entitlements systems are unsustainable.
There are so many entitlements that it would take a book to really explore this subject. However the major entitlements of Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, Food Stamps and the like all compete for the deminishing tax dollar. Regretfully, our politicians pander to us telling us we can have it all when in fact this is the farthest from the case.
There are several trends that are quite clear. First, the baby boomers are coming fast into the retirement age. Second, health care costs are increasing from new treatments and higher cost of older ones. Third, due to better health care and nutrition knowledge, people may live longer requiring government services through a longer life. Finally, the uninsured population continues to grow as firms are unable to afford to provide insurance to their employees. Again, it is time to become honest to the American poeple as to these trends and their impact on entitlements.
It is time now to arrest these trends before our economy is unable to cope. First, the retirement age must be increased substantially to take into account increasing life span. I think that people should be entitled to no more than 10 years of actuarial retirement; so if their expected death is now 85, the normal retirement age should be 75. This may not work for all occupations so exceptions may have to be made in a few instances. With respect to health care costs, I don't think private insurance will be able to cope with the health problems of seniors in a way that will lower costs. I support outcomes based analysis of procedures at all ages, and what is appropriate for a 20 year old may not be for an 80 year old. If this is called rationing, so be it. We cannot pay for any procedure desired by a patient at any cost.
Finally, we must find a way to rally around health care reform for the working Americans. If it is not our current health care reform law, then let's find sensible ways to reform it so that its objectives remain. That is all Americans have some basic coverage. It is not possible for Americans of average means to pay for health care without insurance.
I do not support removing social security and medicare payments from the wealthy elderly. First of all, they have paid throughout their lives for this coverage. Secondly, it may not be clear at what level and at what region of the country the term "weathy" applies. We should pay these benefits, but the income tax system will collect some of it back.
Most of all, I support telling the truth to Americans so together we can make some needed changes that will benefit all of us.
Against. There are both economic and moral arguments for ensuring that people do not fall deeply into poverty and need.
Entitlements generally put money right back into the economy, as people who need them generally use them almost immediately, which boosts consumption. Also, there is a strong moral argument that a wealthy nation has a responsibility to provide a strong physical, educational, and human infrastructure.
It is an investment in the citizenry, even if imperfectly done, and many (though of course not all) people receiving entitlements return to paying taxes at another part of their lifespans.
The last numbers I saw, before the recession, were that 50% of Americans use Food Stamps at some point in their lives, for instance. It helps neither those people, their neighbors, their grocers, or farmers to cut entitlements.
I am in favor of reducing our expenditures on entitlements but "clawing back" entitlements wouldn't be how I would phrase it. The reality is we're on an unstainable path.
First, I'm all for increasing the age of Social Security eligibility by 3-5 years. That said, there could be exemption for those without other sources of income or saved assets.
Second, those with continuing income and saved assets should not receive social security at all but still be required to contribute. Sorry, it's the price you pay to be part of a civil society.
Third, along with this, given a strong reduction in the number of companies offering pension plans, there should be some type of requirement to participate in 401K plan (or at least save some amount of money) if you want to retain eligibility to future government benefits like Social Security and Medicare. I hate the idea of mandating this but the reality a huge amount of Americans could be saving but aren't.
Fourth, it will be difficult to fix Medicare without an overhaul in health care pricing and competition overall. Paul Ryan thinks privatizing Medicare is a good solution but it seems to me private insurance has plenty of issues. Health care institutions need to be mandated to offer a single set of prices (cash payers, private insurance, Medicare) on an open fee list format. Insurers (including Medicare), providers and patients need to be incented to reduce unecessary/elective procedures and leverage the most cost-effective health care options. There are no easy solutions here but there are many ideas floating around on this topic.
In the 1930s, when social security was created, half the people paying into the system would be dead before they reached 65. Imagine, the dead workers' Soc. Sec. payments paying for the living. Now it is the living paying for the living and soon it will be three workers paying for one retiree. How much can we take and how much should we take from the three workers to give to the one retiree? If we want to give to each retiree a $45,000 per year income we will need to take $15,000 from each of the three workers. How much is left over for the three workers to pay their income taxes that run the country and to support their own families? We are living too damn long; do we need a government program to encourage an early death?
Answer This Question