Re: the republican war on science continues...

On Dec 17, 10:43 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
deadrat <a...@xxxxx> wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sar...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 12/16/2010 7:48 PM, Stanley Friesen wrote:
Jeffrey Turner<jtur...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:

Well, that too :-)
[I actually do generally support SS reductions, even though it means I
will get nothing out of it - but a viable government is more security
than mere money].

You may not need the money, but many people do.  We should restore the
top tax rate to 70% and raise the top income for withholding FICA to at
least the 90th percentile of income and that should stabilize Social
Security and give the government the income it needs to run on and lower
the debt.

Actually, I am ill-prepared for retirement. SS is certainly something I
could use, but I do not see how it can be supported realistically. Tax
hikes of the sort you mention are simply not going to get past the
corporate lobby.
Social Security is already "supported realistically."  Given the actuaries'
more dismal projections, Social Security will be able to pay out its
projected benefits until about 2040 or so, at which time it would still
continue to pay 75% of its projected benefits, which would be larger than
today's in constant dollars.  If we assume that we won't wallow in the Bush
depression until 2040, thus taking somewhat more optimistic projection, the
system will be solvent for the next 75 years, beyond which horizon,
actuaries generally say "Hic sunt dracones."
Any system can break, but assuming the breakage for Social Security means
that the US stops paying on its debt instruments, which probably means that
your biggest worry would be learning how to survive in a barter economy.
Rightards assume that reducing Social Security benefits saves money,
conveniently forgetting that Social Security eliminated dire poverty
amongst the elderly.  A return to that condition would simply suck funds
from welfare and their children's generation.  Unless we simply left old
people on ice floes.  Or their equivalent, since there may be none of those
left by 2040.

Why are you assuming that they'd object to the ice floe solution?

As you know, social security is easy to fix.  The top limit
(about $100,000, give or take) for paying social security
taxes is the equivalent of about $5,000 in 1950 dollars.

There is absolutely no reason why that tax limit can't be
raised to $200,000 or higher.

Health care in general, and Medicare in particular, is what's
unsupportable.

But it is curable.  Other nations have managed it.

-In looking at the insurance element, in Canada, the provincial
single-payer insurance system operated with overheads of 1.3%,
comparing favourably with private insurance overheads (13.2%),
U.S. private insurance overheads (11.7%) and U.S. Medicare and
Medicaid program overheads (3.6% and 6.8% respectively). The
report concluded by observing that gap between U.S. and
Canadian spending on health care administration had grown to
$752 per capita and that a large sum might be saved in the
United States if the U.S. implemented a Canadian-style health
care system.[75]-

-Private spending for health care is also far greater in the U.S.
than
in Canada. In Canada, an average of $917 was spent annually by
individuals or private insurance companies for health care, including
dental, eye care, and drugs. In the U.S., this sum is $3,372.[11] In
2006, health care consumed 15.3% of U.S. annual GDP. In Canada,
only 10% of GDP was spent on health care.[5] This difference is a
relatively recent development. In 1971 the nations were much closer,
with Canada spending 7.1% of GDP on health while the U.S. spent
7.6%.-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States

Indeed. If the US wanted to save a full 5% of it's GDP, for *free*,
all it would have to do is copy our health care system.

Canadian Medicare: Better care, access to all, and it SAVES money.

Andre

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: the republican war on science continues...
    ... Security and give the government the income it needs to run on and lower ... Canadian spending on health care administration had grown to ... United States if the U.S. implemented a Canadian-style health ... In Canada, an average of $917 was spent annually by ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: the republican war on science continues...
    ... Security and give the government the income it needs to run on and lower ... but assuming the breakage for Social Security means ... Canadian spending on health care administration had grown to ... The history of Canadian Medicare goes way farther back than LBJ's ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: the republican war on science continues...
    ... Security and give the government the income it needs to run on and lower ... but assuming the breakage for Social Security means ... Canadian spending on health care administration had grown to ... In Canada, an average of $917 was spent annually by ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: the republican war on science continues...
    ... Security and give the government the income it needs to run on and lower ... Canadian spending on health care administration had grown to ... In Canada, an average of $917 was spent annually by ...
    (talk.origins)
  • RE: Quebec Health Care Virus
    ... Subject: Quebec Health Care Virus ... This is more an indictment of the Quebec health care system ... that these versions of Windows are still in use even after their ... platform that has 5-20 serious security patches per month released, ...
    (comp.os.vms)