Medicare: The Real Problem
Sorry OCM, we can’t wait until the Baby Boomers retire for Medicare reform.
Medicare is already in the RED and growing rapidly. The young won’t pay 50% of income to a Medicare tax in 2040, grow up.
Tax the young over 50% of income and give OCM a ZERO deductible in Medicare, right.
Posted by Z Woof
04/14/2005 at 02:53 PM
I’m licensed to sell insurance in Colorado OCM, are you?
My credentials that you ask about include having my agent number attached to the first Medical Savings Account (MSA) in the USA, now called the Health Savings Account (HSA). In Medicare it’s called the Medicare Savings Account (MSA - again) and it is already passed.
To say nothing will change in Medicare is pure stoopidity OCM, sorry.
And what are your credentials OCM?
Posted by Z Woof
04/14/2005 at 04:31 PM
Z-Woof,
Wanna borrow a diaper?
Aside from the usual rhetoric, I think you folks in the US ought to start worrying....NOW! You are already starting to slide down that slippery slope into the same morass we are in up here in Canuckistan.
It is estimated that the CPP(Canada Pension Plan) will be broke in about 5 to 7 years as Z-wolf has stated in his article is happening to the US. Yup, us ‘boomers’ will be retiring in droves. There aren’t the yoot (or whatever nomenclature term you care to use) out there to support us up here either.
On Medicare - we’ve had it. Since around 1966-67. Before that we paid for our medical. Just take a look around you; at Gr. Britain, Sweden, any other country you’d care to name with socialized medicine and /or gummints - they’re going broke. You will start to see 30%+ income taxes; then whopping state and federal sales and fuel taxes. Then huge gummint owned and run lotteries/gambling establishments - all to “help pay” for your massive medical deficits. (I’d welcome a return to those days. Hooray for the Conservatives.)
Don’t think so?? Read up on Canuckistani politics and economy. The history is all up here. Right under your noses. But you’ll probably be reading about it from the bottom of that same bottomless pit you’re heading towards NOW.
Earlier someone said here that our doctors should head down south. Some did in the ‘80’s. And came back again because of massive malpractice insurance premiums for themselves, clinics and hospitals. Many got so shit-scared of being sued, that they ordered every test in the book for one reason - CYA. Blame ALL your court systems for that one - it surely did attract the bottom-feeders and ambulance chasers, didn’t it? Hard one there to reverse too - since most politicians were lawyers first - right? Laws are easy to make/pass; almost impossible to revoke or recind. When was the last time you saw a law changed/revoked/struck down?
Am I gloating? Am I laughing? Am I saying I told you so? NO! I’m seeing exactly what has happened up here over the years. Been there, done that, got a whole bunch of T-shirts. Your politicians are no different than ours - making election promises they never keep. I’m seeing your POTUS doing that right now. Open your eyes and ears. You’ve already got a bunch of states openly making their own laws in direct contravention of the 2nd Amendment - right? “Oh but it’s only a small thing.” EH? Still don’t see anything happening to you?
Just like we’ve become apathetic Canuckistanis, you are fast becoming apathetic Yankistanis.
Mark my words.
I’m ornery enough to live long enough to be able to sing “Welcome to my world......”-Dan D,
CanuckistanOops! Forgot to add one happy little note: Anybody seen what we’ve been doing with OUR “illegal aliens” lately?
Booting them out of the country. In droves. Including those two USMC military deserters and their families who were seeking “asylum” in Canuckistan.
So, what are you folks doing about yours?-Dan D,
CanuckistanLet’s see OldSmellyCatMan...the centerpiece of the President’s health care reforms is Tax-Free HSAs. My agent number is attached to the first one ever enrolled. I submit I have a better understanding of coming reforms than you, sorry.
I repeat, what are your credentials you Socialistic Liberal Democrat who now calls himself an independent. Why don’t you tell us how Kerry is going to win again, you loooser. (Broke Loooser)
Dan we are not going to Socialize all of the US health care system. Who is going to change is Canada.
Posted by Z Woof
04/15/2005 at 06:35 AM
President Bush said at his first debate with Forbes in Ames, IA: “I believe in more choices, more options, more freedom in Medicare, including Medical Savings Accounts (MSA).”
Yes OCM, I know you worked as a non-licensed “Consultant” for Blue Cross, ha ha. So you worked for the great American Monopoly, they are NonProfit or NonTaxed, am I right?
All we are doing is breaking up an old Monopoly, Blue Cross, that paid you so little OldCatMan that you qualify for poverty and free drugs, you’re pitiful.
Posted by Z Woof
04/15/2005 at 08:26 AM
OldSmellyCatMan I have enrolled tousands of people into Tax Free HSAs. Our HSA is FREE and there is no commission. So I can say I have never made a penny on an HSA.
So once again OldSmellyCatMan, the Democrat, is wrong, figures.
Posted by Z Woof
04/15/2005 at 11:07 AM
You asked OCM my “$$ take” on a MSA.
There is no FEE. So I’m sincere. Now you are pissed at that.
Now you say that is fantasy? Care to bet?
You will lose like you always do OldSmellyCatMan.
Posted by Z Woof
04/15/2005 at 01:44 PM
The issue before us today is one whose foundation may be found in the laws of mathematics and business economics. Over the past 25 years, the pencil pilots on Capitol Hill have tried to change the mathematically-derived outcome with political rhetoric and ignored the salient fact that political rhetoric is no match for the laws of mathematics. To paraphrase a cliche from the Clintonistas:
“It’s about the math, stupid...”
The political reality of this current crisis is such that no party can reduce benefits and/or totally eliminate expenditures because the affected demographic group will vote in legislators who will restore their benefits.
The resulting economic reality has become a scenario wherein it is no longer possible to generate sufficient taxation revenue to cover the looming debt leviathan that will destroy our underlying private-sector economy because the level of taxation required to defray these deficits would most likely result in a sustained long-term recessionary cycle. The recession would actually result in a long-term decrease in total government revenues as economic output is continuously strangled by a lack of capital formation activity because the level of taxation will be such that there would be insufficient capital available in the underlying economy to support both taxation and new investment.
These are the ugly facts of the matter and you cannot begin to contrive a “fix” for the insolvency crisis until you first realize that the taxation revenue generation model can’t get you there and the prospects of being able to sustain fiscal discipline (benefit cuts) are not realistic.
This calls into question the entire taxation revenue generation model used by the federal government for the last 100 years or so. That’s right, we’ve only been taxing income for around a 100 years - not the entire history of our country, thus making income taxation a failed social experiment in terms of its overall applicability for government funding as a whole - and herein may lie the key to the creation of a successful, sustainable structured finance solution to the entire entitlement program insolvency crisis.
Let’s start with what we know and build a solution set based upon that…
a) We know the only real revenue generated in our economy is in the form of investment income as a result of capital investment. You invest money and the resulting wealth creation of the business activity so underwritten is sufficient to generate real economic returns.
b) Taking the aforementioned fundamental premise to its logical conclusion, we can look at a scenario wherein the government exchanges its role as a burden on the economy (i.e.: an arbitrary reducer of economic activity by taxing income) to one of being a co-investor in the economy where it takes a portion of its (the government’s) accumulated assets that are not generating real economic returns and investing them back into the underlying private-sector economy. The resulting exchange of roles would create some interesting outcomes that bear further inspection, to wit:
1. The elimination of the taxation drag on the underlying economy would serve to “even out” the overall cyclical nature of the economy as a whole, further reducing the impact of recessionary cycles that would otherwise tip the economy into decline. The most common result scenario suggests this would create a much higher rate of sustainable growth in GDP (5% to 7.75% per annum long-term).
2. The long-term revenue generation capacity of this approach would outstrip our current revenue generating ability (based upon taxation) by a wide margin (in current dollars) because of the compounded effects of elimination of taxation together with the added capital investment provided by the government would create an enormous pool of income-producing assets (over time) that would lead to the government being able to phase out the taxation model as the investment income production capacity of the new model “kicks in”.
c) We can then utilize a structured finance approach that combines bankruptcy-proof asset holding company constructions together with tort-proof business operating organizational constructions that serve to eliminate operating inefficiencies and capital investment allocation inefficiencies on an ongoing basis. This would result in the creation of a government-owned investment portfolio that would grow at a consistent rate above 12% per annum. Now the laws of business economics and mathematics start to work for you instead of against you (as they have been - do you “get it”?).
Outcome?
Within 10 years we would find ourselves in a situation wherein the $11 trillion SSTF shortfall would be defeased.
Within 15 years taxpayer contributions would no longer be required to sustain the Social Security system into perpetuity.
Within 15 years the federal government would be able to sustain the public education entitlement program without further taxpayer contributions.
Within 17 years the federal government would defease the entire remaining deficit pertaining to the Medicare/Medicaid entitlement program.
Yes. It’s about the math, stupid.
But until you are willing to make that leap of faith mandated by necessity (that necessity being the realization that you have created a problem that needs a solution, the scope of which is beyond your current means and methods) you are condemning yourselves and your progeny to a nightmare of economic servitude, the scale of which would make the Great Depression’s impact on our society look like a bad night at the poker table.
You needn’t change your goals, abandon your goals, or “give up” that which you all claim to hold so dear. You must give up the silly notion that it is better to continue painting silly pictures of one another (using political rhetoric to bash your political opponents) than to move on to the next phase of actually addressing this problem. Until you do this, the laws of mathematics will continue to work against you - instead of for you.
It’s about the math, stupid.
Posted by ClintLovell
04/17/2005 at 09:22 AM
My apologies for the long-winded presentation of the “alternative cat skinning method”.
I’m a structured finance consultant (business consultant) and our profession doesn’t tend to say anything that doesn’t take a bit to say…
This is complicated by the fact that this is an issue that cannot be successfully addressed (to my knowledge) by a 30-second sound bite. I think this contributes greatly to the lack of a solution to date...
Namaste!
Posted by ClintLovell
04/17/2005 at 05:46 PM
One of the nicer outcomes of this approach (i.e.: a structured finance solution) is that the goals of the social security program would remain sacrosanct, but taxpayers would eliminate themselves from future Medicare/Medicaid eligibility as a result of being employees and/or shareholders of these specialized business constructions, as they would each end up with a Specialized Personal Retirement Account (or “SPRA") that would grow on a tax deferred basis, so that a worker entering the system today would work 30 years and retire at age 53 with a fixed (guaranteed) payout for their remaining life equal to a little over $50K per annum (in current year dollars - the amount then would be over $93K per annum adjusted for inflation). An ancillary component of each worker’s SPRA would be the creation of another specialized account called a “Employee Profit Sharing Health Account” (or “EPSHA")that would replace the current system and provide each citizen with an average of approximately $1 million for their end-of-life care needs, thus serving to help defease the looming Medicare/Medicaid entitlement program deficit. When the taxpayer retires, the underlying securities supporting the payout are transferred back to the government and the heirs receive a payout on the death of the taxpayer equal to two (2) years of benefits, while the government gets the securities portfolio that it earns a spread on (over and above the guaranteed payout to the taxpayer) that it uses to pay benefits to those who (for whatever reason) are not fortunate enough to have a SPRA. Everyone should have the opportunity to get what they want.
Finally, if we want to be really creative with this we would seek to privatize virtually all federal health care program assets and have the federal government reinvest its one-time sale gain back into this newly “privatized” market segment (again, in the same bankrupty-proof/tort-proof business constructions) and the resulting investment income stream would eliminate the need for taxpayer support of the Medicare/Medicaid system in the aforementioned 17 year period.
It’s all there. There are no real problems, only solutions we have yet to consider, and when it comes to fiscal matters, we are only limited by the laws of mathematics and business economic principles which we should use for our benefit instead of to our detriment.
Posted by ClintLovell
04/17/2005 at 07:15 PM
04/15/2005 at 05:37 AM
