Rambler
Occasional Coherent Ramblings

Home
Get Email Updates
My Office Website
Scott Dyson, Fiction Author
Disney Fan Ramblings - my Disney blog
Chitown Sports Ramblings - my Chicago sports commentary
Eric Mayer's Journal
susurration - Netta's Journal
Rhubarb's Blog
X. Zachary Wright's Blog
John T. Schramm's Journal
Keith Snyder's Journal
Michael Jasper's Journal
Woodstock's Blog
Thoughts from Crow Cottage
Email Me

Admin Password

Remember Me

402160 Curiosities served
Share on Facebook

Money Magazine, Soc Sec/Medicare, and Obama/McCain
Previous Entry :: Next Entry

Read/Post Comments (2)

In the latest Money magazine, there is an article about another "lost" issue: the fate of the two major entitlement/social programs, Medicare and Social Security.

According to the article, in 2010, these two programs will take up about 9% of income tax revenues. In 2030, that percentage will have risen to 51%, and in 2050, by which time I'll likely be dead and gone, they will take 76% of the income tax revenues. Obviously, these are projections based on the projected number of workers, the number of retirees being supported, and the condition of the economy, but they're sort of scary. We're talking major dollars right NOW - what does that mean when it's over 50% of the revenue?

Also according to the article (in fact, this is the subtitle of the article), there are only two cures: Higher taxes or lower benefits.

What do lower benefits mean with respect to Medicare? Can it get much worse? At a time when there should be a national discussion about health care and what goals we should even HAVE for this nation on this issue, the one attempt we have at a form of universal, single payer coverage, is slowly going broke.

Neither candidate is saying much about either of these programs. The article states, in a box, that on the Social Security front, Obama has signaled that "he'd prefer to hike taxes rather than cut benefits." "McCain has gone on record as saying he wants to 'fix the system without raising taxes'. Translation: benefit cuts."

As for Medicare, both have been vague about how they might solve the problems here, and Money says that it is ironic since Medicare is "by far the larger and more urgent problem." Both say they want to "make the system more efficient, cut waste, and rein in galloping cost increases". No specifics.

This issue is a loser, I think, with the voting public. These are very popular entitlements which benefit a wide range of people, wealthy and middle class and working poor alike. No one wants to hear about cuts to their benefits, and no one wants to pay more. Everyone seems to want something for nothing.

Personally I'm planning for my own retirement as if Social Security won't be there. I am hoping that they do something to fix Medicare, because otherwise I'll probably be like a lot of others, getting my major care from the emergency room. I don't think anyone can save enough to get them through a health catastrophe, and how do you buy health care coverage when you're not really earning any money, and living on your own hard earned savings?

I think we can resign ourselves to higher payroll taxes in the near future, at least on the Medicare side of the equation...


Read/Post Comments (2)

Previous Entry :: Next Entry

Back to Top

Powered by JournalScape © 2001-2010 JournalScape.com. All rights reserved.
All content rights reserved by the author.
custsupport@journalscape.com