The politics of the iGeneration
Have you noticed the droopy, silver-haired antiquity of the House Democratic leadership in the new Congress? Michael Barone has, and he talks about it in a recent column at RealClearPolitics (”Wily Old Dems take on Whippersnapper Republicans“). The GOP landslide in the 2010 midterm election brought many young Republicans into the House of Representatives, swept out some young Democrats, and left the liberal Old Bulls in the same seats they have occupied for 30 or 40 years or more.
Democrats like to think of themselves as the young party, the party of new ideas. And in 2010, they remained the choice of the youngest voters, though by only half the margin in 2008. But Barone points out:
“But when you look at the top Democrats in the House, you don’t see young faces. The ages of the ranking Democrats on the Appropriations, Ways and Means, Education, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, and Judiciary committees are 70, 79, 65, 71, 70, 69, and 81. The three party leaders are 70, 71, and 70.”
Whereas the Republicans in the House have term limits for committee chairmen, the Democrats do not. So powerful and politically able pols can hold on to their positions through the wilderness years until their time comes up, and only death can take them out. Gerrymandering protects them from the voters, and party-wide shamelessness insulates them from the effects of scandal. You would not have a Paul Ryan, R-Wis., or an Eric Cantor, R-Va., in charge of the money under Democratic congressional control. And you didn’t. But you see it now under Republican governance in the lower house.
Barone sees that generation of Democratic leaders as working with an outdated model of the country he calls “Big Unit America.” It is a country controlled by big government, big business, and big labor. Think of Keynesian economics, LBJ’s New Society initiated from Washington, the old unionized workforce that would regularly bring the country to a standstill with strikes and sympathy strikes, Big Blue, and “what’s good for GM is good for America.” Barone continues:
“The assumption was that these units would grow ever bigger, to the benefit of ordinary people. That assumption was shared by the Democratic leaders of the just-departed 111th Congress, who grew up in Big Unit America. They passed a $787 billion stimulus package on the assumption that big government would put people to work. They passed the healthcare bill on the assumption that centralized experts in big government could provide better care at lower costs.”
While it is true that younger voters are still breaking for the Democrats, as they grow up and put life and politics together they will find that the Big Unit view of the world is not theirs. The younger generation values personal control of their lives, and this priority is driven by technology. They have personal settings and privacy settings for everything. They are used to having My-this and My-that. Niche news and information sources on the internet have replaced the big three networks of the 1970s. They are used to being heard (or at least thinking they’re being heard) through everything from blogs and comment threads to the widely publicized chatter of social network sites. Centralized, bossy, deaf bureaucracies will not be their thing. It’s not how they roll.
These are people who design their own Converse high-tops online before they buy them.
What does this mean, for example, for one of the great issues facing the nation in the next few years: the replacement stage of repealing and replacing Obamacare? Consumer-driven healthcare reform is a natural fit for this iGeneration. It is an approach to healthcare that puts health insurance in the hands of the people who use it, not of employers or of government, and makes providers responsive primarily to those who benefit from their services. If the GOP can connect this great reform with this rising generation, people like Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor will be in office for a long time to come.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top31 Comments to “The politics of the iGeneration”
You would think old people would know better, but I guess not.
That said, the author is in favor of age discrimination????
Report comment to moderator
It is interesting how old some of our representatives are.
I’m 25. I have no expectation of receiving government help for my retirement. I haven’t talked to many people my age about it, but I would assume that 20 and 30 somethings, and possibly even 40 somethings are not counting on SS and MC being around when we hit 65. I would say that we are counting on being responsible with our own money so that we can take care of ourselves.
Unfortunately, the reality of tackling SS and MC reform is not going to happen under this president; nor will it happen while lifelong congressmen and senators still keep their seats. I would hate for the problem to be circumvented for so long that when my generation becomes the “ruling class” we have to tell the seniors, “sorry, you did not care about us enough to fix these problems when you had the chance. We may just have to cut the programs altogether because we can’t handle this crushing burden, especially since half of you didn’t have any kids to become taxpayers.”
As a Christian, I would hate for that to happen. Hopefully we can get enough 40 and 50 somethings in office soon, who still have non-adult children, that WILL care enough to tackle the biggest spending programs: the entitlements.
Report comment to moderator
Couple this with the other post from Bradley.
The My-kids all realize they wont have any money either downthe road with this government. So why bother working hard? Why bother with structure?
Grab the younger generations by promising them a future, a real one, and theyll hop on your ship ina heart beat.
Report comment to moderator
Would Mr. McCain be considered a Whippersnapper?
Report comment to moderator
BECKYF- Are you hyperbolizing for literary effect when you say, “I have no expectation of receiving government help for my retirement” ?
You will get 75%. This is not nothing.
There’s no good reason (except for the Republican Party) for you not to get 100% of your scheduled benefits, because that level of benefits will constitute no greater a share of GDP than benefits today. In other words, an economy that is paying your grandparent’s SS can support yours, just as easily.
Something’s not right, of course. There IS a problem — just not what Republicans want you to think. The problem is that income growth over the past 30 years has gone entirely to wealthy people whose SS taxes are capped. A smaller proportion of our economic output is available for FICA. This will get worse, if we don’t go back to taxing the rich like we used to.
Small, affordable tax increases will keep our checks at 100% of scheduled benefits.
See what the SS actuaries say (they’re the best in the business):
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/index.html
What do Republicans want you to believe about SS? That it’s a ponzi scheme and government is a trope for failure.
Report comment to moderator
The My-kids all realize they wont have any money either downthe road with this government. So why bother working hard? Why bother with structure?
So giving away money causes people not to work, but apparently not giving way money (SS, Medicare) does too?
When things fall apart the people who are hurt most significantly are the least capable. They’re the ones who would be hit the hardest if, say, SS/Medicare/Medicaid/TANF/subsidized housing/food stamps/SCHIP were to disappear overnight, which is likely what would happen in a “things fall apart” scenario.
If you’re capable, though, basically the worst you have to worry about is paying more taxes. If your kids’ belief that they “won’t have any money either down the road” is accurate then they’re not doing what it takes to ensure their own futures.
Case in point w/ the current recession. Consider unemployment rates by education level:
No HS Degree: 15.3%
HS Degree, no college: 9.8%
Some college or associate degree: 8.1%
Bachelor’s or higher: 4.8%
BLS doesn’t have stats on those with advanced degrees but one unofficial article I found said the rate was around 3%.
Now look at the stats by occupation:
All: 9.1%
Professional and related occupations: 3.8%
And finally some numbers for various metro areas:
Austin, TX: 7.1%
Salt Lake City, UT: 7.1%
Oklahoma City, OK: 6.2%
Boulder, CO: 6.8%
Des Moines, IA: 6.2%
Lafayette, LA: 6.2%
Minneapolis, MN: 6.5%
Omaha, NE: 4.6%
Manchester, NH: 5.3%
Burlington, VT: 4.8%
Charlottesville, VA: 5.4%
Madison, WI: 5.0%
The lesson being that if you are:
1. Willing and able to get an advanced without going deep into debt, and
2. Willing to focus your studies on an employable field (e.g. engineering, accounting, law, medicine), and
3. Willing to relocate to where the jobs are, and
4. Willing to work hard enough to earn good grades, and
5. Willing to live modestly,
then you’re not likely to be unemployed (for very long) no matter how bad it gets. And, even if you are unemployed for several months, it’s not likely to devastate you in the same way it might a person who’s living paycheck to paycheck.
Young people have come to believe that if they graduate with a liberal arts degree from a mediocre school with mediocre grades then they should be able to get a decent job in the location of their choosing. That may have been true at some point in the past, but that ship has sailed.
Report comment to moderator
Old people consume about 4% of GDP — and it’s right, proper, meet, and just that they should. This is the way we do things, decently, because we don’t want our poor, naked, grey wretches beaten down by the dreadful pother on another part of the heath.
Report comment to moderator
What do Republicans want you to believe about SS? That it’s a ponzi scheme and government is a trope for failure.
I may be overestimating how significant this is, but up until recently the SSA has been using its surplus to purchase govt. treasury bonds. Essentially the govt. has been borrowing money from the SSA and using it for general spending. That is about to end. Now there are plenty of other people who buy treasury bonds, but I’m curious what this will do to the rates on those bonds. It may become more expensive for the govt. to borrow money. In addition to not buying the bonds anymore, the SSA will start cashing in the ones it has already purchased in order to meet its commitments. Revenue from cashing out bonds is what’s expected to be exhausted in the 2035 time frame, at which point SS benefits would need to be reduced by 25% to match revenue.
What I don’t fully understand (and am curious about) is the impact of the SSA switching from “buying treasury bonds” to “selling treasury bonds”. Unfortunately I don’t know enough about how all that works to say what (if any) effect it would have. But it sure seems like it might be a negative one.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop: Good points and good to see you again.
That said, as I was watching The Speech last night I noticed and commented on the advanced age of the Dem leadership. Fortunately for the Dems, Obama’s youth and energy, and Pelosi’s…um…hair provide a more youthful cast.
Report comment to moderator
The baby boomer generation and subsequent generations did not have enough children to support the retirees that will begin flooding the entitlements system as the babyboomers are beginning to reach 65 this year. No, I do not believe the government will be able to pay my benefits, nor do I even want them.
Report comment to moderator
ARCADIA, greetings to you also.
Obama is one of our younger presidents, if anybody has seen his birth certificate to know for sure (just kidding!!!). But, ARCADIA, look at his pitiful grey head, and hear him talk, the old, old soul.
There’s no doubt he’s visionary. To ensure that his daughters win the future, he has them speaking Chinese.
We need a 42-year-old socialist like Teddy Roosevelt.
Report comment to moderator
BECKYF – Would you want your minor children, if you have them, to receive SS survivor’s benefits, if the gods had not made you immortal?
Report comment to moderator
Dear Becky – unfortunately you’re right – you’re not going to get anything from SS. SM is plain wrong: I’m more than twice your age and even the SS administration, with its optimistic projections, tells me I won’t get 75% of my intended benefit. But not getting a government pension is the least of your worries. With the out-of-control debt-based spending at the federal level, the U.S. dollar will soon no longer be the reserve currency in much of the world, and oil on the world markets will no longer be pegged to the dollar. When that happens, forget about $150/bbl oil, we’ll be looking at $2,500/bbl oil. In short, our way of life will be radically altered. My advice: learn how to grow your own food, produce your own energe, and team up with other people who know the basics in medicine, construction, waste recyclying, water purification, and armed security. Also, don’t be within 70 miles of an urban area. That’s about the distance people who will kill you for your food will walk.
Report comment to moderator
BUZZY – You say “soon” – how soon (days, months, years, decades)? Also, how long have you been expecting our society to descend into apocalypse?
Do you see evidence that the financial and equity markets share your apprehension?
Report comment to moderator
When that happens, forget about $150/bbl oil, we’ll be looking at $2,500/bbl oil. In short, our way of life will be radically altered. My advice: learn how to grow your own food, produce your own energe, and team up with other people who know the basics in medicine, construction, waste recyclying, water purification, and armed security. Also, don’t be within 70 miles of an urban area. That’s about the distance people who will kill you for your food will walk.
Be afraid, be VERY afraid. Especially of those urban people. But, have a nice life folks.;)
Honestly, this sounds worse than the civil defense “duck and cover” stuff we learned in 3rd grade. Only now the folks being demonized are not the looming red menace but us.
Oh well, I can’t wait until the gun-totin’ spinach-growin’ waste recyclin’ experts and their hired-gun armed security goons are in charge. (I guess the armed forces, the state, county, and local police forces will all have surrendered by then).
Until then, I think maybe we can work on energy independence, inventing some nifty gadgets, educating folks well and maybe creating a few jobs in the process. I may even watch the Super Bowl rather than gathering my children and lighting out for Idaho.
Report comment to moderator
SM – First, I wouldn’t necessarily use the term apocolypse, but rather, societal collapse. The signs of a coming dollar crash are all around, if one is paying attention. Check out the documentary I.O.U.S.A. by the Pete Peterson foundation, or the documentary Crude Awakening about Peak Oil. I’ve been expecting this since a few years ago when I learned of peak oil theory, the balooning national debt, and the even more severe balooning of unfunded entitlements. My concerns have only been exacerbated by the lack of leadership, either from Pres. Bush or Pres. Obama. In fact, both men have taken us in exactly the wrong direction. As for when it will happen, although it’s difficult to tell for sure, I’m thinking a few years rather than decades. Arcadia can make all the snide comments s/he wants, but that won’t help when the SHTF, as it surely will. I’d rather be prepared than sarcastic. And it is possible to be prepared if one takes the matter seriously.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure what Innes’ point is — some democrats are old? so is that a problem? are republicans all young? is being young and inexperienced yet confident and self important a good thing?
Report comment to moderator
Waaaaiiiit a minute, this is just a column about another column! Can that even be considered a column? Write something yourself using your own opinions and reporting and I’ll call it a column. Am I being Punk’d?
Report comment to moderator
I wasn’t aware WMB was the Christian Digg.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not going to continue this discussion as I don’t talk to trolls. And that is what life insurance is for.
Report comment to moderator
“So giving away money causes people not to work, but apparently not giving way money (SS, Medicare) does too?”
Not giving it away is a misleading statement. There WONT be any to give away. Gen Y and i wont be seeing any of that at this rate over 30 years down the road.
Every government, no matter the form, has FAILED at attempting to provide benefits. Monarchies didnt do it, communism certainly didnt do it, and none of your psuedo captalistic countries have managed either.
Why? Because anytime you remove money from people, it will always be less than what you started with, by the time it gets back to them. It can never be as effecient as them spending it themselves.
This is why the government needs to simply protect peoples right topursue happiness and not attempt to give it to them instead.
Report comment to moderator
Becky – there is a third option: ignore the trolls and continue to converse with everyone else. BTW, who do you consider a troll? As best I can tell, I’ve been trying to post in good faith.
Report comment to moderator
“Not giving it away is a misleading statement. There WONT be any to give away.”
Disagree. We just won’t be able to continue giving away as much as we do right now, and as much as we’ve promised. The federal government could, in theory, operate on revenue equivalent to 17-18% GDP and still have programs resembling SS/Medicare/Medicaid. Their payouts would just be less than what they are now.
“Every government, no matter the form, has FAILED at attempting to provide benefits.”
This isn’t born out by an honest assessment of U.S. peer nations.
“This is why the government needs to simply protect peoples right to pursue happiness…”
That one has a right to do something is less meaningful when one lacks (and will lack for the forseeable future) the means to do it.
I think every American who is willing to work a reasonable work week should be able provide a certain minimal standard of living for himself and his family. This regardless of past mistakes, such as a lack of education. I don’t think this can happen without government intervention.
Report comment to moderator
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/27/social-security-fund/
See what I’m saying? It may be true, it may not, but it is what my generation sees.
“We just won’t be able to continue giving away as much as we do right now, and as much as we’ve promised.”
Exactly the problem. You cant deliever.
“This isn’t born out by an honest assessment of U.S. peer nations.”
Show me a nation that isnt in the red, raised taxes, or cut benefits to stay in the black? Those later two are all short temr fixes…
” I don’t think this can happen without government intervention.”
Most who do work a reasonable work week, already provide for their families. You arent doint a darn thing to them, but taking their money to give to the guy who doesnt work a reasonable week.
Where government can help, in my opinion is requiring money management classes right next to english class for all 4 years of high school. You would go much farther, simply enabling proper money management, than taking from them, as if the government is any example of better money practices…
Report comment to moderator
BUZZY – BECKYF thinks I’m a troll.
BECKYF – I think that verges on name calling. I’m a dissenter, but I add substance and take responsibility.
You say you won’t talk. Then you talk. What’s up with that?
Social Security is insurance, BECKYF. Very good insurance.
“The provisions of the old-age and survivors insurance law should promptly be extended to cover millions of citizens who have been left out of the social security system.”
“It is a proper function of government to help build a sturdy floor over the pit of personal disaster, and to this objective we are all committed.”
“A strict application, let us say, of economic theory, at least as taught by Adam Smith, would be, ‘Let these people take care of themselves; during their active life they are supposed to save enough to take care of themselves.’ In this modern industry, dependent as we are on mass production, and so on, we create conditions where that is no longer possible for everybody. So the active part of the population has to take care of all the population, and if they haven’t been able during the course of their active life to save up enough money, we have these systems.”
“To help individuals provide for that security – to reduce both the fear and the incidence of destitution to the minimum – to promote the confidence of every individual in the future – these are proper aims of all levels of government, including the federal government.”
–President Dwight D. Eisenhower
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/social-security.htm
Report comment to moderator
And Eisenhower would be wrong. It is the promotion of the general welfare, not the individual welfare that the federal government is charged with.
Report comment to moderator
“See what I’m saying? It may be true, it may not, but it is what my generation sees.”
Do you get what that article is saying? It’s saying the surplus will be gone by 2037. At that point the SSA will have to reduce payouts by 25% in order to have its outlays match its revenue. What it does not mean is that there will be “no money left” to make SS payments in 2037. As long as people are paying payroll tax there will be money for SS.
“Exactly the problem. You cant deliever.”
Because the legislators who drew up our current web of entanglements failed to take demographics and other contingencies into account. Nothing says we can’t correct that mistake.
“Show me a nation that isnt in the red, raised taxes, or cut benefits to stay in the black? Those later two are all short temr fixes…”
Take your pick. Chile has health care entitlements and a per GDP debt of 6.2%. Hong Kong has entitlements and a per GDP debt of 18.2%. Australia’s sitting at 22.4% and South Korea at 23.7%. Or are you suggesting that countries should carry no public debt whatsoever?
Note that I’m fine with raising taxes and cutting benefits if the benefits were set at unsustainable levels to begin with. The key concept is sustainability. The formula is essentially:
1. Decide how much you want to collect in taxes (per GDP).
2. Determine the least damaging way to collect these taxes while retaining some level of progressivity.
3. Constrain overall spending such that it roughly matches revenue.
4. In particular, impose a hard per-GDP limit on entitlement spending.
5. Tweak program details as needed to stay within this limit (e.g. raise retirement age, reduce benefits, increase copays, etc.)
“Most who do work a reasonable work week, already provide for their families.”
Two key thoughts here:
1. The word “most”. This implies some are not able to accomplish this even with all the programs we already have.
2. That most working people can provide for their families right now under the current system does not necessarily mean they would be able to do so if all govt. aid programs (including free public education) disappeared tomorrow.
3. Not everybody is able to work. You’ll note that in my statement I said everyone willing to work should be able to afford a minimal standard of living. Some folks have a disability that prevents them working. Some have a disability that doesn’t universally prevent them working, but requires that they retrain and work a different job than they did originally.
“You arent doint a darn thing to them, but taking their money to give to the guy who doesnt work a reasonable week.”
This strikes at what I think is the biggest disconnect between those who support entitlements (in the abstract) and those who don’t. Those who don’t typically feel that they go primarily to folks who don’t deserve them. Lazy mooches. I disagree. This is true to some extent with the programs we have now, but more an indictment of those programs than it is an indictment of aid programs in general. There will always be some level of fraud, but it can be mitigated by careful program design.
Again, I’m not arguing in favor of the status quo, but in favor of aid programs in the abstract.
Report comment to moderator
” What it does not mean is that there will be “no money left” to make SS payments in 2037. As long as people are paying payroll tax there will be money for SS.”
Would you ever make an investment where you would get .75 cents in return for the 1.00 you invested? THAT’S DUMB.
It is ineffecient, poor investment.
Let me keep my dollar at least, or let me invest it elsewhere, where I can get even 1.05 for every 1.00 I put in.
The fact of the matter is, the government is giving its people a return of less than 1.00.
“Nothing says we can’t correct that mistake.”
Except the overwhelming attempts that have failed and continue to fail. I’m amazed you still have hope. If you want to keep beating the dead horse, go right ahead.
The only correction that will work is enabling your people…not attempting to do it all for them.
Report comment to moderator
“Chile has health care entitlements and a per GDP debt of 6.2%”
Thats a 6.2% from 97 I think?
They still dont have “equality”, have had to borrow to improve nearly everything, lack quality, transparency, and their consistantly running more in expedintures than income on their health care.
Do you get my point that no feds can do it BETTER. They are no more effecient at it in the long run. The money runs low if not out to keep up with the demand.
SK does not cover things like cancer, the big whopper bills that most liberals are always afraid of will hurt the American. Their doctors make little compared to other coutnries because the government sets the price. That affects the number of higher treatments they do, which thus of course burdens the government further as they do more, to get paid more. Oh, and as of 2009 their family premium was 8000 bucks a year…
“The key concept is sustainability”
Of course it is, and thats my point, federal government does not sustain it any better. Every system is ineffecient. It often creates more or different problems than it will solve.
“This strikes at what I think is the biggest disconnect between those who support entitlements (in the abstract) and those who don’t. Those who don’t typically feel that they go primarily to folks who don’t deserve them. Lazy mooches. I disagree.”
No the biggest disconnect is when you dont realize that I’m saying it is NOT the federal responsibility or in their ability to manage health care any better.
I’m all in favor of helping the poor, of the broken, of even the guy who refuses to work, but I do not believe it is the feds job to do it for me.
Report comment to moderator
Would you ever make an investment where you would get .75 cents in return for the 1.00 you invested? THAT’S DUMB.
Ah, but that’s not what’s happening. If I end up getting 75 cents to the dollar it’s because 25 cents went to pay for the benefits of the folks who are collecting the full amount of their promised payments between now and 2037. Those 25 cents aren’t necessarily wated, they’re just going to someone other than me. Ultimately I agree that our current SS system is badly designed and the issue of “supporting poor old people” should be handled in a completely different way. My point is that it is silly to suggest that someone retiring in 2040 can expect zero money from SS.
If I could make another meta-comment on this particular discussion: You seem to have shifted your point halfway through. Tell me if you agree. Here are our exchanges about SS:
You #21: “There WONT be any to give away.”
Me #23: “We just won’t be able to continue giving away as much as we do right now”
You #24: “Exactly the problem. You cant deliever.”
Me #27: “As long as people are paying payroll tax there will be money for SS.”
You #28: “Would you ever make an investment where you would get .75 cents in return for the 1.00 you invested?”
So you start out in #21 making the claim that by 2037 SS won’t be able to make payments at all. I disagree and state that it will continue to pay out, but possibly only at 75% of what people were expecting. You then redefine your position to be “If SS has to reduce payments from what it originally promised then that is the problem.” This is different from what you originally seemed to be saying, which was that by 2037 there will no SS payments whatsoever.
To return to the original question: do you agree that so long as there’s a payroll tax funneling money into the SSA that the SSA will be able to make payments of some amount, even if that amount is not what was originally promised? In other words, it’s incorrect hyperbole for you to say “There WONT be any to give away”?
Except the overwhelming attempts that have failed and continue to fail. I’m amazed you still have hope. If you want to keep beating the dead horse, go right ahead.
I’m not aware of any attempts anywhere to structure entitlement spending in the manner I propose. So I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s been tried and failed. In fact my works by definition, since my plan is to place a statutory cap on per GDP spending that allows for an average deficit of zero (i.e. balanced budget). If such a plan were instituted and the limit were later raised to an unsustainable level then it would cease to be “my plan”.
That’s the key problem with the way our current benefits programs are set up. They have rules to determine who qualifies and rules about how much to pay out. The actual cost is a function of those rules, demographics, and other factors like rising health care costs. What I’m proposing is that, instead of fixing the “rules” in stone and letting demographics determine how much we actually spend, we fix how much we’re going to spend then modify the rules as needed to stay under that spending cap.
For the sake of argument, suppose we decide we can afford to spend no more than 3% GDP on Medicare. So we set 3% as the limit. Due to demographic trends there happens to be a “bubble” of elderly people who all qualify at the same time. Under the current rules-based system we would be obligated to increase spending in order to honor our rules as they apply to the new (unexpectedly large) group of beneficiaries. What I propose instead is that spending remains constant at 3% GDP and each beneficiary just gets a smaller piece of the pie. Or maybe the qualifying rules are changed to exclude some potential beneficiaries. Ditto for rising health care costs. Costs can grow as much as they want; we’re still only going to spend 3% GDP.
Thats a 6.2% from 97 I think?
2010 as far as I can tell.
You point out various issues with the health care entitlements in the countries I listed. I’m not saying they’re perfect, or that they cover “everything”. My point is that they cover something and they manage to do it without running up excessive levels of public debt.
Do you get my point that no feds can do it BETTER. They are no more effecient at it in the long run.
I get what you’re saying about private industry being more efficient than government operated programs. That’s why I might favor a voucher-based program to allow people to buy private insurance.
What government can do, though, that private industry cannot, is cover everybody. Public education are instructive here. We could, for instance, do away with free public education. This might make education more efficient. It would also result in some set of parents (perhaps small) who cannot afford to pay tuition.
Also, from an efficiency standpoint, you need to explain how it is the U.S. spends substantially more on health care (public + private) than any other country in the world (including those with universal coverage) and manages only mediocre national health statistics (avg. lifespan, infant mortality, etc.)
Report comment to moderator
“If I end up getting 75 cents to the dollar it’s because 25 cents went to pay for the benefits of the folks who are collecting the full amount of their promised payments between now and 2037.”
It’s a decline though. Even under your premiss they get 100%, I get 75%, my children get 50%…eventually it runs out. You are continually getting less than what you invested. Management may slow the leak, but it is a continual leak.
Actually though, if i invest a dollar and the return is .75 and 25% then goes to the elderly, I’ll be getting LESS than .75
“You seem to have shifted your point halfway through.”
Not really. The way I understood the 2037 date is that the surplus has already been spent on other functions. Therefore there is no surplus, and what remains of the SS fund will run out by 2037. Repaying the surplus or an upward ecomony may change all that, but currently, even you admit, by 2037 the return will decline in the least. I did condition my arguement on current conditions.
Which you replied was only a decline. Which I then stated is still a DECLINE.
“What I propose instead is that spending remains constant at 3% GDP and each beneficiary just gets a smaller piece of the pie.”
And that’s a decline. You no longer get the same return. People dont like that. I deserve the same benefits as the guy next to me and the guy younger and the guy older than me. By giving this bubble of elderly less, you are rationing the care to a specific group.
Your plan does not actually address rising health care costs simply by imposing a spending cap on the feds.
“My point is that they cover something and they manage to do it without running up excessive levels of public debt.”
Increasing debt in every system currently, while many benefits decline. So at some point, your only handing out a blanket to the homeless guy…and yet still taxing everyone in the name of that blanket as if it actually helps.
“I get what you’re saying about private industry being more efficient than government operated programs.”
I dont believe I said private industry anywhere.
“What government can do, though, that private industry cannot, is cover everybody.”
Youve already admitted it cant, unless it lowers benefits over time. My point is that you can not, esp under your suggestion, sufficiently cover everyone in the long run.
“Also, from an efficiency standpoint, you need to explain how it is the U.S. spends substantially more on health care”
I’ve already explained our cost problem in plenty of posts on this site. The fat majority of it is in administration and over testing. Your plan does not address those, nor does the current bill. Nor does it take a universal public plan to address those issues.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!